The three-part Furstenau interview

i have to come out of my self imposed short lived retirement to write again. i thought after the censure of DICK i would be satisfied. well, i 'm not. after three days of reBUTTal mostly by DICKS attorney i feel compelled to go on... first off, our hero of the taxpayer is quoted, or his lawyer is quoted in the naperville sun december 25. "I DON'T CARE IF IT COST $ 5 MILLION DOLLARS. THE TAXPAYERS WILL UNDERSTAND. DO WE UNDERSTAND ???? I DON'T !!!!! we are to believe that there is a great conspiracy to GET DICK. the police want DICK, the city manager wants DICK, the city attorney wants DICK, the city of naperville employee's want DICK, and now, most of the city council want DICK. i have said this before, DICK you are not important enough to have a conspiracy against you. you brought this upon YOURSELF ! now, i contend if you are not DICK, his tearful wife, his sons or his 30 neighbor friends then there is no way you can stand for this man. the council found 8-1 that he has had major problems with city employee's. the argument for all 3 of you DICK blog backers is that he saves taxes and he is only one who fights for the taxpayer. well, does he really ? finally the naperville sun was less than impressive in the questions posed to DICK. most questions were answered by his ATTORNEY. and when DICK did answer, he said "he can't remember that." is this going to be his excuse ??? we all must write thousands of letters to DICK and tell him, we have had enough, and to step down.

email, furstenaur@naperville.il.us

Linking the censure to the arrest is easy to say, but will probably be difficult to prove in court. I certainly hope Collins, DF's attorney, can prove the link he's alleging (and not just be conjecture) or else I think the other councilmen should sue him.

It was good to hear DF's point of view, even if Collins did most of the talking. But I can't say I came away agreeing there is/was some city-wide conspiracy against DF. In fact, there were a few comments such as DF's wife's professional treatment by NPD which seemed to indicate the city (and police) aren't as biased as DF believes or fears.

Yes, I think DF should have been allowed to speak during the censure hearing. He should have been able to address each allegation made against him. Shame on the council for not letting this happen.

And to The Sun--why no blogging on the topic and how long was the blackout imposed? Why did you agree to the self-censureship? I find this info to be intriguing.

It is hard to imagine why they voted to censure Mr. Furstenau and why they would budget $400,000 in taxpayer money to fight him? It is an embarrassment and a waste of taxpayer money. If they had any brains, they would try and settle with Mr. Furstenau and give him the money he deserves. I doubt he will ever fully recover from this attack on his character.

It has become obvious they are out to get him. I hope he takes it all the way in court and wins. I know I would rule in his favor.

Go Dick!

I am sure there is enough blame to go around in the whole affair. However, regardless of his position on specific issues, it is apparent from many reports that Councilman Furstenau has some anger management issues and is unaware of proper workplace behavior. He has no right to threaten employees with their employment, harass or attempt to intimidate them. Those issues alone are enough to have him removed. I plan to support whomever runs against him in the next election. Since he is unable to control his behavior and there is no ability to recall him, it is up to the voters to show him the door at the next election. I would suggest he seek professional help to learn to control behavior.

I still support Mr. Furstenau. I still wish he had not sued the city, but I believe the city left him little choice. Unfortunately, the burden of proof is insurmountable-- even if he is justified, it is doubtful he can prove his case beyond the "reasonable doubt" standard. A reasonable arguement could be made that granting the interview is a confirmation of that assessment. If he can't win in court, try to win in public opinion.

The city owes him due process. Instead he was railroaded and there is no way, in my opinion, that many council members will change their positions. The city staff certainly will not -- they are never wrong, about anything..During his tenure, Furstenau asked the tough questions, the city fathers don't like it and he must be silenced and I think that they've succeeded -- to the great detriment of the citizens of this community.

No one can fight city hall.

Councilman Furstenau first attempted to what amounted to extortion
to recover the $190,ooo it cost him in his failed campaign blaming
his loss on the arrest. Furstenau never had a chance to win that
election as he didn't even have the support of his local party, helost to a better candidate. Then he sues the city of Naperville for the money claiming there was a conspiracy by the police department that led to his arrest. Police Chief Dial is one of the finest chiefs in this state. He would never involve himself in such activity nor would he allow his officers to act in that manner.

It is time Councilman Furstenau take responcibility for his own inappropriate conduct and apologize to the City of Naperville employees he may have offended over the years. If he can not do that then he should resign as he can no longer be effective and make unbiased decisions involving the police department and city employees in general.

Message to Southeast Side Dad: I said it before and find it irritating that I have to say it again - no obscenities, profanities or implications of such will be tolerated on this blog. If you've got something to say....just say it. If you can't keep it clean, zip it or go somewhere else. Thanks.

I believe I mistakenly put this in the wrong blog area before regarding the interview and the 'stipulated bench trial' question:

From the interview, it sounds as if DF and his Lawyer are saying that the city insisted on it because they lacked evidence.

From my understanding, only the defendant can ask for it in a criminal trial. The way they explained it in the interview leads me to believe they are saying the city forced it that direction.

Is there any lawyer on here that can clear that distinction up because I was under the impression that only the defense can waive that right to a trial by jury (a civil right). Now, DF did say he signed it (waived that right) because his lawyer advised him to, but still made it sound like it was the prosecution's doing/initiation.

Message to T. B.: You're blogging on the topic right now. As stated, Councilman Furstenau requested - and we agreed - not to blog on the topic the DAY of the interview and until the interview ran in full. It was only fair that the three-part series ran in full both in print and on our web site (napersun.com) before it was laid open for comment and discussion. That way readers, bloggers etc. could weigh in having read the whole interview and have the ability to put things into full context to offer their views. I would hardly call that "self-censureship." I'd call it fairness. I hope I've answered your question.

The main problem I am presently having with Councilman Furstenau here is that the moment he stepped into the realm of conspiracy theory, his entire case against the City Council and everyone who he is presently suing fell to pieces in my eyes. Anytime anyone embarks on a voyage into conspiracy theory, the boat sinks just as it leaves the dock, because they fail to grasp what the concept of theory is; a nice sounding idea that is ganged up on by a brutal bunch of facts. In order for Councilman Furstenau to prove that such a conspiracy exists, he would have to prove that everyone from Mayor Pradel to Chief Of Police Dial and everyone else in between all worked together and plotted to bring Councilman Furstenau down and destroy both his reputation and political career. The problem is that this is not Chicago, where political antics like that have practically become something of a spectator sport. This is Naperville, sort of the epitome of Middle America, where it seems the only real political wrangling these days involves when the heck the Carillon is going to finally be completed. For Councilman Furstenau and his attorney to even suggest that such a conspiracy against him exists would mean their proving that each and every party involved was doing so at the risk of ruining their own personal careers and going against their own individual consciences, not to mention facing serious legal consequences, and that all were working together so as to bring down one city councilman. As I said, it is at that point that the Councilman’s case falls to pieces. This is why I now have a difficult time seeing his side in this matter and unless he and his attorney can offer solid concrete evidence to back up their claims, instead of threatening to sue anyone who even so much as looks at the Councilman the wrong way, I do not see how they could even bring such a case to the docket without making more a public fool of Councilman Furstenau than he already has become.

Referring to his lawsuit against the city, Dick is quoted in part 3 as saying:

"I don't care if it costs $5 million. The taxpayers will understand."

Sorry, but I do NOT understand. This is the man who is trying to make us believe that he truly watches the pocketbooks of taxpayers in Naperville?

What's wrong with this picture? How did we get a crazy man on Council?

And to the 20 Friends of Dick who stood up at Council at said he was a man of "integrity": How do you define integrity? Does your definition include someone who consistently votes on issues on which he has a direct conflict of interest? Such as, for example, whether or not the council should censor him?

If the Council really wants to put some teeth into its scolding, it should vote in an ordinance that says councilmen cannot vote on things on which they have a conflict, and they should LEAVE the dais during the discussion **and** the vote.

It is up to every elected official to make public his or her private interests in matters that come before the city. To do less is an insult to voters. And in cases where the conflict is obvious, get the heck off the dais. Don't make us come up there and get you.

There is always two sides to a story and somewhere in the middle is the truth. I think that statement is appropriate on this matter, I feel both sides are at fault and they are both acting like children. Basically, both sides are spinning this story to make themselves look good and the taxpayers will be the ones who will lose in the end.

My question is to the Naperville Sun...why weren't tougher questions asked? I would like to see the Naperville Sun ask DF directly, "have you every lost your temper during a city council meeting or at a city employee during your time as a city councilmen?" It has been said over and over again by his supporters that he does not lose his temper and that he doesn't have any anger issues. Why not ask him directly so he has a chance to clear his name on that topic? I kept looking for that type of question as I read the three part series, but never saw it. One more question to the Naperville Sun, were the questions that were asked during the interview pre-screened by DF's attorney or did they hear the question for the first time during the interview?

To Joe:

As an attorney, I was strongly put off by the positions Furstenau and his attorney tried to stake out on the issue of his "stipulated bench trial". Furstenau's statement that "a stipulated bench trial is . . . when the other side has no evidence and gives up" is beyond wrong. It's ludicrous. I was extremely disappointed that his attorney did very little to correct the misimpressions given thereby, and more than passing disappointed that the Sun also made no attempt to correctly explain what was very explainable.

Furstenau and his attorney are conflating two things: his waiver of a jury trial, which resulted in the judge trying the case (the bench trial), and the use of stipulated evidence in the course of the bench trial instead of actual testimony. One has nothing to do with the other. You can have stipulated evidence in a jury trial, and you can have full presentation of evidence, including cross-examination of witnesses, in a bench trial. The phrase 'stipulated bench trial' is gibberish.

You are correct the Furstenau, like any criminal defendant, had a right to a jury trial (US Constitution, Sixth Amendment), and he--and only he--controlled his right to waive it. If his attorney advised him to waive that right, that advice was presumably based on the attorney's professional judgement that it was advantageous for Furstenau to be tried by the judge, rather than by a jury. I will not speculate on why he might have thought so. Furstenau seems to indicate in his remarks that his attorney was virtually promising him victory if he waived his right to a jury. I find that unlikely, but interesting that such would be Furstenau's view of things.

Like any other criminal defendant, Furstenau also had the right to confront the witnesses against him (also US Constitution, Sixth Amendment). Again, Furstenau--and only Furstenau--controlled his ability to waive that right and accept stipulated evidence regarding the officer's testimony rather than demand the state produce the witness for direct testimony and cross examination. The government cannot frustrate that right merely by refusing to produce the witness, as the Councilman and his attorney imply in their answers. Furstenau had every right to demand that be done, but he voluntarily waived that right. As with his waiver of his right to trial by jury, I'm assuming his attorney advised him to do so because he felt it was advantageous or preferable in some way.

Somehow, Furstenau and his attorney want people to believe that his willingness to waive his Sixth Amendment rights to trial by jury and confrontation of witnesses is the equivalent of the government admitting they had no case. That is unquestionably not so. He won after doing so, which he certainly may be pleased about. The sun rises after the rooster crows, too, but the rooster would be mistaken in claiming that his cock-a-doodle awoke the sun.

joe

the city can go to the judge and request a stipulated bench trial. the judge can rule to allow the prosecution to go to the defense and request it. the defense, at that point, has the ultimate and final say. you are right that the defendant, and the defendant only, has the power to wave their right to a jury trial so the judge and prosecution can't force them to accept the bench trial. but the judge can allow the prosecution to go to the defense and request or suggest it, and the the defendant can decide for them self what they would like to do.

from what i gather in the interview, after furstenau received the request for the bench trial he asked his lawyer about it who responded by saying it is an admittance, of sorts, by the prosecution that their case is weak. furstenau then asked his lawyer how many he had done this way, he said 25 and that he had won all 25 and that they would not lose this one either. after hearing that, furstenau agreed to the bench trial requested by the city.

To Kevin: The questions were tough i.e. "did you ever hit, touch etc." and I believe you're indulging here in a bit of Monday morning quarterbacking. As for the questions being pre-screened by Furstenau and his attorney, I can respond: Absolutely not. They heard them for the first time during the interview. Thanks.

You know, at the risk of stooping to sarcasm, I do believe that right about the coming of the spring, some enterprising entrepreneur out there could make a small fortune peddling “I’m being sued by Dick Furstenau!” and “My folks went to Naperville and all they got was this lousy lawsuit by Dick Furstenau!” T-shirts.

Phil--exactly! Thanks for spelling that out well. I found it fairly...arrogant, I guess, of DF to be claiming he was somehow wronged by the "stipulated bench trial". He had his shot to have Ofcr Hull cross-examined and he took a pass. He had his shot at a jury trial, and again took a pass. He can't come back now and somehow claim this is yet another injury placed on him by The Man.

Jim Lynch - OK self-censured may be too strong, but I'm still perplexed why their side would care about the blogs and the timing. After all, DF has been the (main?) subject of The Sun's blogs for some time now.

Monday morning Quarterback...a little dramatic don't you think? I don't agree with your assessment of tough questions and now I am Monday Morning QB...your paper asked him "did you ever hit, touch, etc...", that question has been asked many times to him and he has repeatedly said no, did you think he was going to change his answer during the interview with your paper? "Ok...I did hit him...you got me...don't worry about what I said in court!".

My question, to my knowledge, has not been asked to him..."Have you ever lost your temper during a city council meeting or with a city employee?" I think it is fair question and it seems to be the root of the defense by his supporters that he has not lost his temper and that he does not have anger issues. I just figured that questioned would be asked during a three part series. If it has been asked, please show me where.

To all,

It is clear that many did NOT read the actual censure documents (N-1) on the City site. In doing so, you would see that there was NO research done on the charges --- they were merely acdcepted as fact.

Also, under the guise of conspiracies, many would do yourselves justice by learning what it actually means: an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act. So, for those who post that it needed to include everyone from Pradel on down, etc ---- NOPE! Take, say, a highly-placed City employee and one councilperson, as an example ---- Voila! You have a conspiracy!

Back to the listed charges [online] --- If you look closely at datas of letters, dtaes of items referenced in letters, the legalese of the petition itself, etc --- I see it as an easy loss for the city in a court of law. It is dumb, and they are dumb for not ending it. They got their head handed to them in Napergate, and it will happen again. Of course, they can just send Rosanova to the trial and he can scream at the witnesses ..........

To Kevin: C'mon, Monday Morning quarterback isn' that bad - just imagine if you were Rex Grossman. Seriously, the questions were tough. We were going for - and got - an on-the-record account of Dick Furstenau's side of the story. There were a lot of questions to be asked. We didn't manage to squeeze in yours i.e. "Have you ever lost your temper?" Thanks.

Note to T.B.: You're right - Dick Furstenau being prominently in the local news has made him the subject of blogs - and some very lively ones I might add, this one included. Simply put, what he asked that day (Friday, as the interview took place) was that the Sun refrain from blogging on this issue i.e. him and the lawsuit, censure etc. until the interview was complete and had been put out for public consumption. We4 didn' think that was a lot to ask. That was all. Again, no self-censuring.

Jim, I apologize and will try harder to reign it in.
I really appreciate the forum.

To Southeast Side Dad: No problem - we at all times get overheated as we discuss community issues....just trying to keep the conversation on a somewhat polite level. Not always easy to do. Glad for your participation.

Jim Lynch -

Thanks for the question you asked in your intro to this blog:

There is one nagging question, though, that comes into play. Just prior to the Council's 8-1 vote for censure, why wasn't Furstenau given the opportunity to address his accusers? Isn't that one of the hallmarks of the democratic process? Jim Lynch.

Jim, if you really wanted to pursue the issue, you might ask Doug Krouse and Darlene Senger which of their campaign supporters (ie big law firms, established businesses & developers around town) threatened to pull their support from Doug & Darlene's state campaigns if they did not change their position on the Furstenau censure. You might recall that Senger, Krouse & Bob Feisler had voted against the censure only two weeks before the actual vote. Ask them what changed? Feisler previously said he was not here at the time so, he would not be voting for the censure. Back room politics and horse trading caused Doug & Darlene to roll over. If they give you get a straight answer - you'll be on the way to that Pulitzer I keep talking about.

My answer to your question is that extreme political pressure was put on the three City Councilmen that changed their vote. City Council did not allow Furstenau to respond to the charges because the deal was already struck - behind closed doors - and most likely in violation of the Illinois Open Meetings Act. It was politics that led to the censure - plain & simple. Politics that has its roots in Furstenau refusing to be a yes man for city staff and certain well connected friends of City Staff. Politics is fine and spirited politics is even helpful - but the City crossed the line when they allowed politics to drive the censure. It will not hold up in - the City failed to give Furstenau his "day in court" before they "convicted" him. It appears to be retalitory - because that is exactly what happened.

As to his conspiracy theory - Furstenau does not have to prove anything "beyond a reasonable doubt" - that's the standard for criminal prosecution. Furstenau only needs to show by "a preponderance of the evidence" that his claims are true. This is more like a 51% confidence level. Criminal cases requires more like 99.9% level of confidence.

Furstenau's "conspiracy theory" is rather simple, it goes something like this: 1) Furstenau made political enemies at city hall by pushing hard against government waste 2) those political enemies encouraged and allowed a wrongful criminal prosecution by the NPD that Furstenau beat in court 3) Furstenau sued the city and the NPD in an effort to clear his name 3) since Furstenau's city hall enemies could not get the wrongful criminal prosecution and in retaliation for the federal lawsuit those same city hall rivals orchestrated a council censure that failed to provide Furstenau the most basic concepts of justice and "due process".

Oddly enough, had the City had not pursued the censure, Furstenau's case seemed an uphill battle. But, by railroading the censure after Furstenau filed a Federal Law suit, the city will need to explain "what changed". Otherwise, the censure appears to be retribution. Federal Courts do not like to see a party to any lawsuit takeing retribution during the case. The City will need to be able to explain to the Federal Judge 1) why now and 2) why the lack of fairness or due process. If the City fails to explain this obvious question - the $$ will grow for Furstenau.

Many people on this blog seem to believe that "the truth is somewhere in the middle." And, most likely these people are correct. Unfortunately for the City, if the Federal Court finds that Furstenau's claims have "any basis whatsoever" the City will lose big time. "Somewhere in the middle" means that Furstenau wins somewhere between zero and $15 million in damages.

My advice to City Council - find middle ground for an apology from both sides and settle this thing fast!!!

Michele,

That's a tall accusation about Doug and Darlene. Is it at all possible they arrived at their vote on their own after more carefully considering things like Corporate policies and regular HR practices in the private sector? Also, that's a tall accusation about violating open meetings act. Is there any proof of this or it is simply speculation on your part?

DF may not have to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt (since it's not criminal), but you also ask the question why he wasn't allowed to face his accusers. Same answer: This was not a criminal matter.

After slogging through the three-part Furstenau interview, I can say that my opinion hasn't changed a bit.

I found the interview itself very illuminating. Furstenau comes across alternately as self-pitying, arrogant and churlish. He seems to have a razor-sharp memory when it comes to perceived wrongs done to him, but when it comes to the accusations against him made by staff, he cannot remember anything at all about those occasions. Awfully convenient.

And the prospect of a multi-million dollar suit made me clench my teeth. What gall. What greed. What a farce.

FIck has clearly worn out his welcome as an elected official -- and I don't care how many driveway issues he claims to have solved. If that's the best he can say about his tenure on the Council, he should hang his head in shame.

Bob S.
I agree with your remarks and feel as you do, "They got their head handed to them in Napergate, and it will happen again."

There is just too much evidence against the city and Dick only needs to show a preponderance of evidence and not proof beyond areasonable doubt.

It just seems odd to me that city officials let their egos interfere with what is best for the taxypayers. A lengthy 10 year legal battle involving 3 laws firms(2 outside and one internal) to defend against Napergate in hindsight was not the best course of action. It could have been settled for granting a liquor license he was entitled to and the TAXPAYERS could have been spared millions of dollars!

This DF case could have been settled for an apology....later an apology and a 100k. But city officials want a Napergate style battle and if they lose they will tell us we don't know what it COST US!!! Egos should never be an issue in legal battles!

Do we have any guarantees this time we will know what it will cost the TAXPAYERS???

many of you have said things that show that you only know 1 side of the story and you don't know what you are talking about.

Just Watching - you stated furstenau should recuse himself from censure vote and discussions, are you a moron. it is against the law to make him do either. he has every right as an elected official to be apart of those discussions and votes to defend himself. the argument that it would be a conflict of interest for him to defend himself makes zero sense. one of the reasons he stated in the interview that he is suing the city is because the censure topic took place in an executive session that he was asked to forced to recuse himself from. that was a violation of the open meetings act. if the council is going to discuss censuring him, he has the right to be there and defend himself. that is not a matter of opinion. it is a matter of the law.

kevin & jim r. - what does asking if he has ever lost his temper accomplish? furstenau himself has stated that some of his interactions have been heated or pointed. but he also stated that many of the people who are censuring him have done things similarly or even worse. in the interview he relays a story, which took place in executive session with all councilman present, that burchard himself went ballistic and the discussion had to stop because the council wanted him to settle down. furstenau said he isn't pearly white but neither is the rest of the council. that is why the censure was wrong. not only did he not get a chance to defend himself, but they were censuring him over behavior that they knew they were guilty of themselves. maybe jim lynch can provide any further clarification to this point if it was given in the interview.

phil & tb - your stipulated bench trial assertions are wrong again. if you read the interview it is clear that they discuss the fact that the city requested the bench trial because the state had no witnesses who would testify. after 17 months they had no witnesses to back their story even though it took place on a busy street in the middle of the day. they also make it clear that hull himself decided not to testify because he didn't want to be cross examined while under oath. that is why the city asked for a stipulated bench trial. they had no one to testify. they had no case. then you ask why didn't they drop the case? well that is a very interesting question. i have a feeling the answer will come out in court and be quite damning.

t.b. - i am certain that furstenau and his attorney aren't just making wild accusations that can't be backed up. im sure they aren't just blindly suing everyone. im sure they have some good reasons and evidence and maybe even witnesses, but aren't prepared to "tip" there hand. all of it will come out it court.

joe - when the states attorney said no to felony charges because there was no evidence, the city went and filed for misdemeanor battery. all you need to get an arrest warrant for that is an officer who says he was hit. the states attorney can't stop anything from proceeding at that point. you don't need any evidence. in the end, even hull wouldn't testify under oath, and they had no other evidence.

john murr - you may believe that chief dial is the greatest chief in the history of the world, but in know many people will disagree with you on that. furstenau doesn't allege that the npd is horrible and corrupt from top to bottom, but he does believe that he ones involved with his case need to be held accountable.

here is my opinion. i am certain of a couple of things:
1) one of the most interesting things i thought was said was when shawn collins said that he gets 10 or so calls a day with people coming out of the woodwork to share information they may know abou the whole situation downtown. he said most was a waste but some of it ends up being very pertinent and damning. it seems that furstenau is getting some unsolicited support from people who know some things.

2) furstenau said that this event would be very cleansing. it seems to me that they know some things that they are holding very close to their vest. so we still don't know the whole story.

3) if what furstenau and his attorney are alleging is even mostly true and they can prove most of it, the city is going to pay big-time. my opinion is that they wouldn't be making allegations and suing people they can't connect the dots to. they stated that they think burchard's letter was written by more people than just him. if they can prove that, the city is screwed.

4)this may be the most true thing on this blog. furstenau and collins know more about the whole situation then they are sharing and that is smart. people keep throwing out these rebuttals (states attorney this, evidence that)the truth is, none of us know anywhere near all the facts. we may know probably 20% of what they are aware of. it will all come out in court and it will be interesting to see. i think any judgment for or against is premature until we know all the facts, and it is clear we don't.

does jim lynch have any comments to add? any of your own impressions about their story and what they know versus what everyone else knows? are there points people make here that support or contradict anything that furstenau and collins shared with you?

Instead he was railroaded and there is no way, in my opinion, that many council members will change their positions. The city staff certainly will not -- they are never wrong, about anything...

No one can fight city hall.

Posted by: sam | December 26, 2007
******************************************************************
Sam,
You seem discouraged! Don't be! Beating City Hall is not easy. The Napergate Man is the only one that has done it in this town in recent years, but it has happened before in other towns. It can be done!

It just requires hard work, research, and a lot of patience to beat City Hall. Eventually some employees in City Hall will turn and support DF. I think employees turned against the city and began feeding the Napergate guy lots of crucial data that eventually helped him in his legal case. So remain optimistic! Time is on DF's side as long as the city does not settle!

I think Mr. Furstenau made a mistake to speak to the Naperville Sun. Many litigants make this same mistake and their words end up haunting them in court. I think litigants need to remain quiet.

If they need to speak, it should be done thru paid advertising as the Napergate guy did as you can control what you say and have your attorneys review it before having it published.
Anyone can say a wrong word when talking directly to the press as has happened in the Drew Peterson case. He refers to his wife as "it" and "something" in interviews which is a Freudian slip of the tongue indicating he knows she is dead. Or he would refer to Stacy as "she" or "her" instead.

Shawn Collins allowing his client to speak to the press was a HUGE MISTAKE. Sometimes you wonder if these attorneys want their 15 minutes of fame at the expense of their clients.

I believe in Dick Furstenau but I think he is not getting the best legal advice. His first attorney mislead him about what "stipulation" means and his current attorney is committing the sin of all times allowing his client to talk to the PRESS!

DF needs to do a case study on Napergate if he wants to beat City and not rely on his attorneys. He needs to lead the charge and tell his attorneys what they need to do and not expect them to do the right thing without his guidance.

I am still optimistic DF will learn from his mistakes, correct them, and beat City Halls as the Napergate Man did. He still has a chance as soon as he grabs the bull by the horn.

Taxpayer:

To answer your question....no. You make some good points as others on this subject have. As of now I know nothing other than what was said in the interview.

Michele B.
You obviously did not watch the city council meeting last week, or you would know that Furstenau was given the opportunity to respond to the misconduct claims before the censure vote. He was even asked if he had any different recollections of the events in question. He didn't have an answer. How would a face to face confrontation with his accusers be prudent? At the meeting, instead of taking the opportunity to respond to the documented misconduct issues, Furstenau chose to state that he helped people with their circular driveways, that he saw the censure as just retaliation for his federal lawsuit, and made other comments irrelevent to the issues at hand. If you saw the timeline in the Sun the other day, you would know that City Council voted in June to have a procedure for censure added to council rules, and it was instituted in September. Furstanau's Federal lawsuit was filed in late October.

The time line in the Sun gives a great perspective, including the fact that the city was right to reject Furstenau's attempt to get a cash payout, to help pay off his political cronies who supported his run for a failed state election try. Why would he expect the city to give him our hard earned tax dollars for political purposes? You can read the time line at: http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/furstenau/713577,na24_fursttimeline_s1.article

Taxpayer,

Why did DF agree to a bench trial?

Would it not have been more telling had they went through the jury process and made the prosecution say in full court that they had no witnesses to produce, not even the officer himself?

I still can't get past the fact that he signed away his own civil rights himself with his own hand then later claims to be 'deprived' of them.

Michelle B,
I have to agree that council members can be pressured to change their vote by those whom you mentioned but also due to heavy pressure coming from residents.

Doug Krause and Darlene Senger are known to be supporters and admirers of DF to the best of my knowledge. So their change of heart and conscience, I also believe is a result of pressure.

In the Spring Green battle led by the Napergate Man, 7 council members changed their mind in a very short time. At that time it was pressure of Napergate ads, residents, rallies, speakers, future votes, property owners, and everything else. Doug Krause was one of the council members changing his vote. Doug is a very nice guy but can be pressured to change his vote by residents, corps or legal firms! He wants to be on the right side of issues so he can advance his political career even if it means FLIP FLOPPING. Kind of a little like Hilary Clinton!

Mayor Pradel is a very nice guy also. He did not change his vote and all the pressure in the world could not effect him. He believed a shopping center fit just right in a residential neighborhood and that was it! One may disagree with Mr. Pradel, but one has to respect him for not FLIP FLOPPING under pressure like other council members. I do not believe he has any goals of advancing his political career beyond Mayor which he is very happy with.

And for blogger Joe, to expect you to prove what pressure may have come to bear is ridiculous. Some things in this world are so obvious yet unfortunately so unprovable until an insider FLIP FLOPS!! That could be a long while in some cases......

After reading the interview I still see it the same way - that Furstenau lost his temper and abused the cop. I also believe that the cop was advised not to testify in the hope that this would blow over, and as such proves the old adage that "no good deed goes unpunished".

I was disapointed that what seemed like most of the answers came from his lawyer instead of DF himself.

joe

i think that your questions are valid. my answer is this, i don't know. lol. i think all those things will come out in court when the time is right. MY OPINION is that the judge and furstenau's attorney were very well aware of the entire situation. when the city went to the judge to request permission to request a bench trial, the judge would have questioned them as to why, and then the judge, the city and furstenau's attorney im sure had some lengthy discussions as to what the situation was. but i think most telling sign is:

1) the fact that the city initially requested the bench trial is telling about their case. i believe it was a desperate move on their part. why did they need to request it if they did have a good case and witnesses? why did they not just drop the case all together? Did the states attorney suggest they drop it? if so, why didn't they? I think the answers to those questions will be a very telling when the time comes, and possibly very damaging.

it remains my opinion that there is more here than meets the eye. im certain there are a lot of facts here that we don't know about and it leaves many people against furstenau based on what we know, and i don't necessarily blame them either. but, again, i think that one of the most interesting things furstenau's attorney said is that they have learned a lot of things since they filed this suit and that people are coming forward with information on a daily basis. right after that was said, they said this would be a cleansing experience for the city. i have no idea what they know, but i do believe it will be very interesting to find out. many people at that point may change there mind.

the other interesting thing i found in that interview was the fact that furstenau attempted a settlement of some sorts 3 times. the first one being a request to the council for modest reprimand of the officers involved. when burchard went crazy and said absolutely not, furstenau asked for and apology and 130k to recover money lost in the "doomed" election. the third time, and the most telling one, was when a councilman recently approached him and asked him to consider settling that the council may be ready. when they contacted the city they said they would consider it but ONLY IF HE RESIGNS! even then they are making an attempt to get him out of office which is what furstenau has alleged from the beginning. that is interesting to me.

i know many people won't agree with me and that is fine. im just stating my opinion. i have been on these blogs for a while and it is no secret that i support mr. furstenau, but i do believe that there is more going on here than we are aware of. that they know more than they are telling us. that they have some "aces in the hole" to share when the trial gets here. im just suggesting many people may change their minds when we find out what they are. they could very well shock us. and i do believe that exposing dirty cops or corrupt officials and getting them out of positions of power is more important that the money the trial will cost. i think something like that will benefit the community infinitely more than the money. of course, that is if all that actually happens. we will see. we can argue whether or not it will forever, but, in the end it is meaningless to do so. i will now go back to blog retirement and watch what happens.

hey southeast dad,

you couldn't be more wrong. first of all it doesn't make any sense. the cops are going to pursue something for 18 months then, at the last minute, pull out and say, "lets just see if it blows over". are you kidding? that makes no sense. even if that is what they wanted, they would have just dropped the charges all together and not asked for the bench trial.

also, furstenau didn't lose his temper and abuse a cop. the judge even said so with the innocent verdict. and he came to that conclusion after considering hull's testimony. hull's testimony was allowed in court. in a stipulated bench trial, both sides agree to what witnesses would say if they were testifying. the difference is that, in a bench trial, they aren't subject to cross examination under oath. therefore, hull's testimony of events did go before the judge, along with all the rest of the prosecutions evidence for the bench trial, and the judge still declared him innocent. making the argument that he hit or made contact with the officer doesn't add up because he was found innocent in a court of law. this situation is now beyond that.

and now i am retiring. just frustrating when people say things that aren't even accurate or intelligent. it is one thing to have an opinion, but at least be intelligent and mostly accurate in what you state. at least be logical.

over and out

In order for Councilman Furstenau to prove that such a conspiracy exists, he would have to prove that everyone from Mayor Pradel to Chief Of Police Dial and everyone else in between all worked together and plotted to bring Councilman Furstenau down and destroy both his reputation and political career. The problem is that this is not Chicago, where political antics like that have practically become something of a spectator sport.Posted by: Mannerly | December 26, 2007 11:16 AM

******************************************************************
Mannerly,
You can never be so sure what involves a CONSPIRACY. Sometimes silence does!

In the Napegate case politicians left and right were alleging the liquor store owner was a habitual seller of liquor to minors.
Police Chief Dial had the records to indicate that the Napergate man was by far the toughest guy on minors in town...BY FAR! He knew that that guy consfisctated more fake and phoney IDs than all other 100 liquor establishments combined. Yet, he chose to remain silent while he knew elected officials like former Mayor Sam McCrane were blatantly lying.

I have little doubt that Chief Dial is a very nice guy with a great conscience. But is he willing to stand up to a Mayor, city attorneys and city staff and risk losing his job? History indicates he is not...at least in one case!!

The Napergate guy documented everything. He called the cops each time he got a fake ID and demanded a police report number. He apparently did not rely on the police dept. for records....he kept his own! One time he published a full page ad with 200 fake IDs documented by NPD police report numbers he accumalated.

In the end it was the Napergate Man's extreme documentation of the facts that exposed the city conspiracy against him. And many, many officials were undoubtedly involved! Unfortunately, good men like Chief Dial chose to remain silent while a conspiracy was going on.
Would he have lost his job if he spoke against City Officials that he had to know were lying? I believe so! So one has to ask if one is trying to save his job, is he a Co-conspirator? I don't know the answer to that questions but maybe the Federal Courts will answer that for us some time in the future.

If the answer is yes, many silent employees like Chief Dial, may not risk being silent in the future when they know wrong doing is taking place under their noses and with their knowledge.

The facts have really not come out in the DF case. Both sides are jumping the gun and assuming they know all the facts. We simply don't know yet. There is misinformation and confusion being fired by both sides.

But, Mannerly, please don't assume that the City of Naperville is not capable of being involved in a conspiracy. It is very capable and has in the past. I am just hoping it learned from the Napergate days and would not be involved in a 2nd conspiracy. But I can not be sure!!

I wish both sides of the blogging would take a one year break and let the litigating parties prepare their respective cases for Federal Court. Residents have to understand the legal system is very slow. We would be lucky if the trial started in 2009 and the appeals were done by 2012.

So my advice is we need to move on, enjoy the Holidays, and read the Naperville Sun when it reports in a timely and fair manner on the results of the trial. This bloggin stuff contains so much nonsense and speculation. If people want to blog they should blog on cases that went thru the court system and try to learn from them! Speculation on the future is nonsense!!!

Settling this case by learning from the expense of the Napergate experience is really the smartest thing to do. With all due respect, DF does not have the talent or support that the Napergate Man had to deliver a knock-out punch against City Hall in court and public opinion. And the city does not have the credibility or righteousness to deliver a knock out punch to DF in court and public opinion. It seems the public is evenly divided and thus the parties should settle...logic on occasion does make sense!

In the Napergate case thru a series of 100 full page ads loaded with facts, the Napergate Man was able to rally almost all the residents to his cause. If you successfully rally the residents to your cause with hard facts, you somehow rally the jury to your cause. If you rally the jury to your cause with hard facts, you will get a favorable verdict. The Napergate man had video surveillance in his store that helped prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt, in addition to facts he accumalated and obtained from many sources. (Unfortunately there was no video in the punching/touching case which will make this case difficult for both sides to impress their points of view on a jury)

Neither party in this case has the needed ammunition to win. It will be a weak verdict for either side or a hung jury wasting even more taxpayer money. I think both parties should come to their senses, swallow their egos and settle this case quickly and efficently. I know no one is listening but I had an urge to write!

Finally, my suggestion is no apology but $100,000 to DF. The apology is implied with the settlement but yet allows the city to save face by not issuing a FORMAL APOLOGY! All the city has to tell the residents, is we chose to give him 100k to avoid paying the attorneys 400k. We chose to save the TAXPAYER 300k or 75% of the potential legal costs. The residents will buy this as it makes sense and EVERYONE WILL BE A WINNER!!! Is that really so hard to do....???

DICK, the old "watchdog" of the city's money states " I don't care if it costs $5 million, the tax payers will understand"! Wow, that was really a fiscally sound statement DICK!! I've got a great idea: Lets have DICK and Ofc. Hull both take a polygraph test as to the events that happened on 1/1/06. I bet DICK would take a pass on that offer...........

Elizabeth and Taxpayer,

Thanks for the backfill information. That's certainly more than the average citizen has any clue about. If half of what you say is true then I would probably agree with you on the Pay him some funds and make the whole thing blow over. Along with that, he better stick to his honor and refund EVERY PENNY to his contributors or else run the risk of being called a big liar about asking for that amount of money in the first place.

If the city pays him, do you suspect he will actually refund every single penny back to his contributors?

the difference is that, in a bench trial, they aren't subject to cross examination under oath.
and now i am retiring. just frustrating when people say things that aren't even accurate or intelligent. it is one thing to have an opinion, but at least be intelligent and mostly accurate in what you state. at least be logical. over and out
Posted by: taxpayer | December 26, 2007 08:11 PM
------------------------------------------------------------------
Taxpayer,
You suggest people be intelligent and mostly accurate when expressing an opinion.

I just want to assure you that witnesses are subject to cross examination under oath, both in bench and jury trials. The only difference is in a bench trial the judge decides guilt or innocence. In a jury trial, the jury decides guilt or innocence.

You can stipulate to facts or statements in either kind of trial. If you stipulate, there is no cross-examination as pertains to only what was stipulated to. One can sitpulate to anything and everything if both parties agree. But whatever is not stipulated to is subject to cross-examination in either kinds of trials by both prosecutors and defense attorneys.

I suggest you come out of retirement, Taxpayer, and try to correct your statement. When you retire, you need to go out with a BANG on a good note. Try for a third retirement! On second thought if you keep retiring and coming back you may lose your credibility. Maybe it is better to continue blogging and not retire since I don't believe you are capable...and neither do you want to! Plus why retire! Most of what you say is credible and very informative. Over and out!!!

Marybeth
PS. I am not an attorney but been there and done that before...plus read a lot. And for the record I am a supporter of DF and also the Napergate Man who preceded him. But if you, Taxpayer, are not careful in what you say, you will not only ruin your credibilty but hurt DF's as people believe what they read especially when it is repeated over and over again. I had seen this repeated so I thought I would step in with some clarification!

joe,

i just realized i missed addressing one of your other questions directed to me about the stipulated bench trial and why furstenau would sign away his rights to a jury trial and then claim to be "deprived" of a jury trial or cheated by the bench trial.

the answer is: i don't think that is what he was trying to convey. what i took from it was that hull had decided not to testify in a jury trial to avoid cross examination. that is why the city suggested the bench trial. that simply demonstrated how weak there case was all along. that they only had 1 witness (hull) to base their story on, and in the end, even he wouldn't testify under oath to avoid the cross. i don't think they were trying to say they were cheated by waiving their rights. i think they were just trying to make the point that it demonstrated how weak and stupid the city's case was from the beginning. they were raising the question that if furstenau really hit hull, why did he eventually decide not to testify in a jury trial to avoid cross examination under oath? fishy? i understand you might not agree with that point, but i think that was the point they were making. it's fishy to me.

southwest

your not entirely accurate about furstenau choosing not to respond or defend himself to the allegations. all the other councilman spoke first, as you are aware. when rosanova spoke he asked dick if he had a different recollection of events or if he wanted to address them. rosanova stated he would be willing to listen and allow dick some time to respond, and then he also said something to the effect of, im sure the rest of the council would allow you an opportunity to do so, maybe even at a later date. furstenau didn't respond at that time because the mayor never gave him the floor to speak. they continued with the remainder of the councilman. when it came furstenau's turn to speak, he said his piece and then addressed rosanova at that time. he said he would be happy to address the allegations and share his version of events. he then told the mayor that if he was willing to afford him that opportunity he would be happy to respond. the mayor said no and started the vote. furstenau did, in fact, offer to address the allegations, but the mayor said no.

Bob S and Elizabeth--

You're right in sayign that a conspiracy does not have to involve everyone in the city (mayor on down); however, a conspiracy DOES have to involve an AGREEMENT to commit the act. Proving an agreement can sometimes be very difficult unless you can uncover evidence such as e-mail or other correspondence. Two people may be working towards the same common goal (legal or illegal) and yet not be working together. If two people file complaints about how they were treated by DF, you have to prove they were working together for this to be a conspiracy.

And just Bob S--

I'm quite certain you've never spent any time in a court room because you have no idea what you're talking about. To say that Hull made the decision not to testify so he wouldn't be cross-examined is simply not possible. Hull has no say in whether or not he testifies because witnesses cannot choose whether or not they want to testify. It's called a subpoena.

If DF hadn't agreed to Hull's stipulated testimony, then DF's attorney could have cross examined Hull. And DF's attorney could have subpoenaed Hull to testify if the prosecution didn't call Hull as a witness (which would be very unlikely Hull wouldn't be called as a witness since he's practically the only witness).

What you're missing from this case is that DF agreed to Hull's stipulated testimony. DF already agreed to what Hull's testimony would be. That's not to say that DF agreed with Hull, just that DF agreed to WHAT he would say. That should in no way be equated with Hull not wanting to be there or refusing to be there. In fact, from today's Sun we learn that Hull was ready, willing, and able to testify.

Bench trials are requested by both the prosecution and defense for various reasons and one can only speculate why the prosecution asked DF if he would agree to a bench trial; however, since the final decision was DF's then he should stop whining about it and move on. If he was so set on a trial by jury, then he should have had one (stipulated testimony or not).

Taxpayer, I am in complete agreement with you when you write:

"just frustrating when people say things that aren't even accurate or intelligent. it is one thing to have an opinion, but at least be intelligent and mostly accurate in what you state. at least be logical."

Now, I'm going to ask you to follow your own advice, because you preceeded that statement with a number of statements in plain violation of your own stated philosophy:

"in a stipulated bench trial, both sides agree to what witnesses would say if they were testifying."

No. In a regular criminal trial, there is a judge, who makes legal rules and makes sure legal procedure is followed, and there is a jury who decides all facts, and the ultimate verdict. In a bench trial, there is no jury and the judge performs the role of the jury, in addition to his regular role. That is the *only* difference. The fact that the case is tried to the bench does not change the rules of evidence. See: http://www.dupageco.org/courts/docs/courtsystem.pdf (scroll to page 9)

As you can see, that document also reinforces my earlier point that in a criminal trial, there will be a jury unless the defendant waives his right to the jury in writing. A waiver is not a stipulation. A waiver is the free cessation of a right by a single person. A stipulation is an agreement between two people. This is one reason, apart from the fact that there simply is no such thing, that the phrase 'stipulated bench trial' is gibberish. For criminal cases, such a stipulation is legally impossible because the government cannot be a party to the decision.

The decision to try the case to the bench is made solely by the defendant, and must be freely made. Your insistence that there is significance to the 'fact' (which you have not noticed is not a fact, but is merely the assertion of Furstenau) that the government requested the waiver from Furstenau is not logical. The government simply has no say in the matter.

"the difference is that, in a bench trial, they aren't subject to cross examination under oath."

No. The rules of evidence do not change for a bench trial. The constitutional protections afforded criminal defendants do not disappear with the jury. Furstenau's waiver of the right to a jury did not constitute a waiver of his right to confront witnesses. However, in a criminal trial, as in all trials, the parties can stipulate to the use of evidence. An evidentiary stipulation is an agreement between both parties to a trial that a particular piece of evidence may be considered by the finder of fact as true and accurate and that it's use in the the trial is legally unobjectionable. In this case, the prosecution proffered a stipulation as to what the police officer would testify to, if called as a witness. The defense agreed to that stipulation. Consequently, the judge was free to consider that evidence.

The stipulation of evidence is a completely separate matter from whether the case is tried to the bench or the jury. It is common in both bench trials and jury trials and is strongly encouraged in the name of judicial efficiency. It does not amount to an admission by either side that they have no evidence or no case. To assert otherwise is absurd. That Furstenau and his attorney insist upon these points strongly damages their credibility.

If you read the interview, the reason that the defense would agree to that stipulation is fairly evident. Their strategy for attacking the credibility of this testimony did not revolve around direct rebuttle of the police officer's story. Conequently, cross-examination would be largely pointless. Rather, Furstenau's attorney recited a number of procedures the officer should have done (reports that would have had to be filed, etc.), in the event that his assertions about being assaulted were true. Presumably, from the attorney's remarks, the stipulation included the fact that none of these procedural follow-up steps were taken.

"therefore, hull's testimony of events did go before the judge, along with all the rest of the prosecutions evidence for the bench trial, and the judge still declared him innocent. making the argument that he hit or made contact with the officer doesn't add up because he was found innocent in a court of law. this situation is now beyond that."

The situation is now that Furstenau is suing the city alleging (among other things) that the prosecution was baseless. One cannot prove a prosecution baseless, of course, merely by pointing out one was aquitted. That is why he is saying things like "a stipulated bench trial is . . . when the other side has no evidence and gives up". That is why, in turn, it is important for people who know better to speak up and explain why such statements are ridiculous. We are not beyond that, at all.

The conduct of both sides in this dispute is appalling! The potential expense in taxpayer dollars is staggering, and for what? There can be no winners, only sure losers--the citizens of Naperville. While it's true that there are two sides to every story, it is also true that "where there's smoke, there's fire." Whether or not he struck an officer, it seems quite likely that Mr. Furstenau has engaged in deplorable conduct during his tenure on the Council. While this is regrettable, it does not justify the lawsuit/censure circus to which we've been subjected.
The fact that the Council specifically, and City government in general, cannot resolve these issues internally--and without expenditures running into the hundreds of thousands--is simply egregious. It is folly for us to put our faith in a Council which can't manage its own affairs, and which demonstrates such an alarming disregard for the taxpayers who elected it in the first place. We must all consider, in the next Council elections, whether any of these individuals are worthy or capable of governing our wonderful city.
I am an 11-year resident, who is justifiably proud of Naperville. I just hope that those writers who have consistently called Naperville "one of the best American cities in which to live" haven't been reading the Sun lately.

Taxpayer,

Thank you for trying to go back and answer my question regarding civil rights, and I appreciate that the first sentence is your answer (i don't think that is what he was trying to convey.)

The rest of your answer has nothing to do with my question though.

Let me explain myself from another angle: If DF is pushing this up to a Federal Court because it's claimed that his Civil Rights have been violated, then he shares some of that responsibility because he himself signed away some of his Civil Rights.

It seems rather puzzling to be willing to sign away one's rights, then claim deprivation of some. DF waived his 6th/7th Amendment rights. He's the only one who could do that. So what Civil Rights are left (After we take those which HE HIMSELF signed away) off the table to be violated?

If their claim is that Council acted in a 'conspiracy' to reprimand a rogue employee who has stepped out of bounds (policy) with their conduct then that is just absurd. Heaven forbid any employer takes any sort of disciplinary action with regards to complaints by coworkers out of fear of being sued. What are they trying to say here? If a Co-Worker harasses you, just suck it up and take it because if two or more bosses catch wind of it and do anything about it then they will be sued and everyone is out of a job? I'm sure the gal in Sales who gets her behind grabbed on a daily basis by her slime ball coworker will love to hear that logic.

Circling back to topic... Which 'rights' of his were violated since the 6th and 7th were given up by his own signature and therefore can not be part of this claim?

Now that the man in under censure and has to behave himself as far as city employees go, I would very much like to see the Naperville Sun interview some of the city workers who have crossed the Councilman’s path at one point or another and what happened to them as a result. These people have most likely been living in fear of their jobs prior to the censure. I would really like to hear their stories now. Maybe then we would get a better picture of what the Councilman is really like.

To Moonrunner: Those would make great interviews. However, the way things are shaping up you'll probably have to drive into Chicago and listen to their testimony. I doubt any of those people will go on the record with the SUN about the alleged events, though we'd love to have them.

To Bob S--

My last post addressed to you (to "just Bob S") was meant for Taxpayer.

Hey Jim Lynch, my only question is that if the Councilman was indeed acting the way it has been claimed he acted towards some of these city employees, and also in light of the information given in the interview from the city attorney that appears in the Sun today, why didn't anyone act on stopping this guy before things got to where they are right now? Is it because the man actually had that much power and authority at the time, or was it because people who could have done something just turned and looked the other way?

To Moonrunner: Sorry, don't haver an answer to that one. By the way, your question sounds a bit rhetorical.

Joe,

I'm sure DF's claim are some sort of due process rights violation and false arrest. I hate to liken it to the Kevin Fox case since the circumstances are so different but DF's claim is probably similar (and yet so less severe, despite what DF's attorney seems to think).

DF's waving of his rights to a trial by jury (the bench trial) and also his right to cross examine the witness (the stipulation) were after the arrest (which is what DF is suing about) and were also limited to his court proceeding.

Elizabeth,

Regarding your above post,(Posted by: Elizabeth | December 26, 2007 08:32 PM) I fully agree with you. It seems like everyone is trying to make a point for one side or another. You appear to be the most neutral, have the most insight based on history, and provide the most reasonable solution. I hope both litigating parties agree to your recommended settlement as it is fairly balanced and would allow both parties to save face, while putting this fiasco behind us.

It seems like no one is paying attention, because everyone is in a FIGHTING MODE. No one wants even a CHRISTMAS TRUCE. How sad!!

Phil,
Marybeth said everything you said about bench and jury trials in a few sentences in a post 7 hours earler.

No offense, but your rambling on and on to make a point was unnecessary since the point already was made in layman's language.

It seemed like you were giving a lecture in law school instead of blogging.

Anyway having said that do you agree with me that Marybeth basically summarized what you were about to lecture?

I also agree with Martha's post to Sam, that City Hall can be beaten. She lays out how it can be beaten and reminds us it was done by the Napergate Man.

TB,

The truth of the matter is that arrests happen all the time that lead to Not Guilty verdicts.

A NG verdict is a victory. Turning around and suing after that victory seems like SPITE from the cheap seats; thereby doing the exact same thing that the person suing is claiming happened to them. (2 wrongs don't make a right, so to speak).

I don't think I can ever vote again for someone who acts like that and it makes me ashamed I had voted for them in the past and even allowed campaign signs to be put in my yard for them. Not anymore, not ever.

Hey taxpayer - DF was not found "innocent" - he was not proven to be guilty. There is a BIG difference. There are lots of possible reasons why the trial went the way it did.

DF is a Republican politician in the most Republican county in the country. A councilman was given special treatment first by the police and then by the (Republican) State's attorney. This is upsetting, but not really surprising that either organization gave a politically connected person special treatment.

Taxpayer,
Why didn't Furstenau jump in with both feet and respond to the misconduct claims against him when it was time for him to respond? He had plenty of time to go over them point by point. The information was posted on the City of Naperville website, and in his packet, so he had plenty of time to review it, and make a statement regarding the specific events. He chose not to. Instead he chose to use that time to make statements that did not address the issues. Rosanova's suggestion that he might want to take more time, maybe even another day, to respond was more or less ignored by Furstenau at that point when he immediately began making his statements.

T.B.

You are either wrong or merely confused.

For some reason, you say I mentioned Officer Hull ---- I certainly did not! I referred only to the definition of a conspiracy (much simpler than most think) and made a reference to Napergate. I actually have a fairly complex history and understanding of the law and court room drama, so I would suggest you actually be correct when you accuse others!

Perhaps you should get your data straightened out!

For your furhter edification, I actually wrote as follows:

"It is clear that many did NOT read the actual censure documents (N-1) on the City site. In doing so, you would see that there was NO research done on the charges --- they were merely accepted as fact.

Also, under the guise of conspiracies, many would do yourselves justice by learning what it actually means: an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act. So, for those who post that it needed to include everyone from Pradel on down, etc ---- NOPE! Take, say, a highly-placed City employee and one councilperson, as an example ---- Voila! You have a conspiracy!

Back to the listed charges [online] --- If you look closely at datas of letters, dtaes of items referenced in letters, the legalese of the petition itself, etc --- I see it as an easy loss for the city in a court of law. It is dumb, and they are dumb for not ending it. They got their head handed to them in Napergate, and it will happen again. Of course, they can just send Rosanova to the trial and he can scream at the witnesses .........."

TB,

SORRY!

I just caught up and saw your correction.

To all, Ignore My Post To TB prior to this one!

Southwest & Joe -

If you watched the Council Meeting, it seems beyond debate that the decision to Censure Furstenau was made before the meeting. That fact is hard to dispute. And, that fact is the problem facing the City. Before giving Furstenau the opportunity to speak (at all) the remaining councilmen read prepared statements and each councilmen said that they would be voting for the censure.

The Council engaged in a "show trial" on the Furstenau censure. After saying how they would vote, then they asked Furstenau if he would like a chance to defend himself. It reminds me of the old western Judge Roy Bean when asked by the sheriff if they could hang someone charged with stealing a horse. No, said the Judge, first we will have a trial, then we will hang him.

When Rosanova asked Furstenau did he want to speak, it was the equivalent of asking "any last words" before we hang you? In Furstenau's response, he said that he would welcome an independent investigation of the charges, but viewed the process as a farce with the city staff playing the roles of "the victim, the judge, the jury and the executioner."

Now if the Federal Judge determines that the Furstenau censure was made prior to the Council Meeting, the most obvious question is "When was the decision made?". There was a closed door executive session a few days prior to the Censure Vote. Furstenau was excluded because the agenda of that executive session dealt with the Furstenau lawsuit. If the council discussed the censure during that executive session, they violated the state's open meeting act which provides insurance against secret government actions. Now, there's a tape made of these meetings, and you can bet that Furstenau's attorney will get his hands on this during the trial.

I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the censure was discussed in the closed door meeting. If it was, the City loses more $$$.

Finally, if the City Staff is so completely sure that Furstenau was guilty, why would they refuse to follow a reasonable "arm's length" procedure in conducting their investigation of Furstenau? Why not hire an independent law firm to conduct interviews and draft a report showing their findings? That would have been the right way to handle this issue.

Michele,

I would venture a guess that most council people have their minds made up on many issues that are in the packets and that they have thought long and hard about before they reach such time as a vote.

Why would issue N-1 be any different? In fact, taking your logic, why would there even be a packet ahead of time for any meeting if they are supposedly not to know or even consider how they feel about an issue before the meeting? Wow, I bet we could save the city a TON of money if we stopped making packets for the council people before the meetings. I've seen some carrying around HUGE volumes of paper (that are those packets). Think of the trees we would save if they voted on everything BLINDLY. Nah, that's probably not a good idea because I like when people at least consider and weigh issues before voting on them.

Since someone said nothing to sway their leaning based on what they read or investigated per the packet materials, they probably continued to vote how they already decided to lean within their own minds just like any other issue presented before them for a vote.

The conspiracy part of DF's case seems a stretch. However, if there were indeed no witnesses that will confirm the officer was struck, and that there are numerous people who will claim he was not, not only does DF deserve an apology and to be reimbursed for expenses, some people need to be fired. (Is it too late to get Burchard to pay off his no interest loan?)

Joe - I was just trying to fill in some info for you. I completely agree with you. If the city started making payments to every arrestee who is found not guilty, the police would stop making arrests or we'd go broke.

Bob S - no problem. The mistake was mine to start with. I'm assuming the Sun is still having some trouble and one of your posts came through as Anonymous.

And lastly, Michele B. - I agree with you, also. Why was there no independent investigation? It would have been reasonably cheap and quick since we're talking about interviewing a 1/2 dozen city employees and DF (if he would agree to speak since I assume DF would defer until his trial) to test whether or not Burchard's letter is correct.

Michele B.,
You are beating a dead horse. There was a 9 to 1 vote by our elected officials in favor of the censure of Furstenau. Each elected official expressed their reasons for their decision. Please listen and learn.

The lawsuit that Dick Furstenau has filed against the City is like a husband who decides to sue his wife because his wife has bruised his ego. Then the husband expecting the intimacy of the marriage relationship to continue as if nothing ever happened, and not being able to understand why his marriage ended in divorce. I think Councilman Furstenau cannot see that he is digging his own grave. Even if he and his attorney were to win this lawsuit, which I don't think they will, he would have won the battle, but he will lose the war. In the wake of the lawsuit, he will have dragged the Council and the City into the mud with him, and will have left a stench behind him. I don't think he will stand a chance of ever being elected to anything, much less the Council, ever again. His behavior is not appropriate for a sitting councilman, who is charged with serving the people of the City of Naperville.

hey vernon

IF (understand i did say IF) furstenau wins the lawsuit and legitimately exposes a lot of corruption from people in power, including chief dial, and it "cleanses" the city of those individuals, isn't that one of the best ways a sitting councilman can serve the people who elected him? i do. or would you rather avoid the negative publicity and let the corrupt people run a muck while the lead the city? i know i wouldn't.

all i'm saying is lets see what happens. he may be doing all of us a favor.

Taxpayer,

Your logic has a fatal flaw. You seem to think that any replacement of these alleged corrupt individuals will themselves be corruption free. I highly doubt that.

DF is only doing DF and his 'backers' a favor. Backers who themselves will expect some sort of 'handout' from doing someone a 'favor'. Allegedly...

joe

your argument about my fatal flaw makes no sense. are you implying that they are corrupt but we shouldn't do anything about it because their replacements may be? what makes you think there is a high probability their replacements will be? are you saying most people in government are corrupt? are you saying we shouldn't make any attempt to remove corrupt individuals from positions of power and influence over citizens? are you saying we shouldn't attack corruption, that we should sit and do nothing? im not sure what your point is other than to turn a blind eye and allow corruption to flourish. how does that serve the city? how is removing corrupt people only serving the backers of furstenau. how does removing dirty police chiefs, or managers, or staff or even councilman not serve the public good?

Taxpayer,

You are the one making the assumption they are corrupt. If you are going to accept that leap of faith then you have to accept mine that their replacements will be too. If you assert that replacements will not be corrupt then there exists the high probability that those in those positions right now are not corrupt either.

Are you stating they are corrupt as fact or are you only suggesting the possibility? If the former, then make a blanket post stating you are calling them out as being corrupt. If the latter, then all you are doing is speculating and I can speculate that replacements will be corrupt too, since we're talking hypothetical.

If you do call them out as corrupt, make sure to leave a valid email address or way for someone to get in contact with you (phone number) so they can follow up on whatever evidence you may have that can help rid the city of this dastardly cloak of naughtiness. Will you do that for this great city of ours?

Taxpayer,
Give up on the all the unsubstantiated insinuations you throw around to make your asinine points. No intelligent reader will fall for your ridiculous innuendos.

joe

if you read my blog i used the word IF. i even put IF in capital letters to state that im not claiming they are corrupt. i said IF they are. many people are against furstenau because of the money this will cost so i simply posed the question: what IF they are corrupt and furstenau exposes that and wins, won't that be more valuable to the city and a service to the city in the long run. my point is to wait and see what comes out.

according to your "blanket" argument, we should stop electing officials and hiring police chiefs all together because everyone is corrupt. i believe that most people who serve the public do so with integrity so i believe there will be a good chance any replacements will not be corrupt. i simply posed the question about what IF the ones we have now are exposed in the end and proven to be corrupt. don't read more into it than is intended.

Dear Jim R,

>>He has no right to threaten employees with their employment, harass or attempt to intimidate them.

I have never seen Dick F. do any of these things. You are repeating the things the mudslinger said in a letter he publicized as he left town with the cash he got from the same council members that censured Dick. Why did they give him this money? If these things really occured why are we hearing about them as the mudslinger walks off with our cash? Are you starting to get the picture?

To Tom Klau,

Tom, I too found it disconcerting we only heard about Furstenau's pattern of conduct with staff when Burchard was leaving. However, I do understand why it (unfortunately) has to work that way sometimes.

Burchard apparantly documented all these (alleged?) instances of Furstenau's behavior, and apparantly they have tried to work behind the scenes with Furstenau to change his interpersonal skills. If this is true, and nothing happened, then formal complaints should have been filed. This should have been brought out into the open. But, most cities and city councils like to keep their personality clashes out of public eye. I understand that.

I also suspect Burchard was frustrated with the inability to get Furstenau to alter his approach (in terms of how he dealt with staff). Reading between the lines, and this is just me speculating, perhaps Burchard thought HE might have a legal case for hostile environment. Who knows. The letter on the way out the door may well have made it easier for him to collect the severance package, seeing he was basically painted as a hero around city hall and in the press.

I'm a big believer in not letting small problems become big problems. If there are behavioral "issues" with council/staff, they need to be cut off at the pass. I've personally witnessed some extremely abrasive and in my estimation over-the-top behavior from Furstenau, but that's only one side of the story, and only my impression/opinion.

Personally, I hope the city and the council learns a lesson from this whole thing.

Taxpayer,

you said "IF (understand i did say IF) furstenau wins the lawsuit and legitimately exposes a lot of corruption from people in power, including chief dial, and it "cleanses" the city of those individuals, isn't that one of the best ways a sitting councilman can serve the people who elected him? i do. or would you rather avoid the negative publicity and let the corrupt people run a muck while the lead the city? "

Looks like the IF emphasis was on winning the lawsuit, and the corruption part of it you kept rambling on as if it were a given fact... legitimately exposes... cleanses the city... let the corrupt people run a muck while the lead the city....

Everyone read IF as only IF he wins the suit. The rest you are throwing out as fact in a binary sense... Avoid negative publicity and let them run amuck OR cleanse the city. You wrote it.

That is why I asked for clarification. If you believe most people who lead are not corrupt (as do I) then why do you have such a hard time believing that those currently leading are not corrupt? From the wording in many of your posts, you've already prejudged them to be guilty of corruption.

joe

my IF statement about winning the suit goes to the suit itself as well as the rest. IF he wins the suit, and IF some people are corrupt, and IF it results in legitimately exposing corrupt individuals, and IF this whole fiasco ends up exposing and cleansing the city from corrupt individuals in power won't that be a valuable service to the city? just posing a legitimate question.

im not trying to make any allegations. the number one issue most people have with furstenau filing suit is that it will cost the taxpayers money, and a councilman should serve the taxpayer by dropping it. i agree that is a legitimate point. my point is what IF, in the end, when all the evidence that we don't know about yet comes out and furstenau is right and he exposes some individuals as being corrupt? won't that be a valuable service to the city?

i am not making any assumptions. people against furstenau assume his lawsuit is frivolous and will cost taxpayer money for no legitimate reason. all im saying is lets see how it plays out in the end. we MAY find he really is doing a service for the taxpayers IF there really are corrupt people in power and he proves that.

i find it interesting that it seems that there is a pretty clear dividing line, for the most part, between those who support furstenau and those who don't.

those who do support him feel that they have either been mistreated by the npd in some way or the city while trying to work on some issue at city hall. they tend to relate to him and give him the benefit of the doubt.

those against him have never had and issue while dealing with a staff person at city hall or the npd or had npd mouth off to them or abuse them in some way. don't make the assumption either that those who have had an issue with npd are only those who have broken the law and deserve it. that simply isn't the case. all that matters is there are people who feel that way. the people who have never had an issue don't relate to furstenau and don't give him the benefit of the doubt.

this is obviously a generalization, but that appears to be the main difference between those who support him and those who don't.

Please someone show me a case where a police officer was slapped in the face and did not arrest the individual on the spot. Boy some people believe anything anybody says without using common sense.All policemen know that this case is a joke.

Taxpayer,

I thought I read DF's case was about his civil rights being violated. Exactly when did it become about ridding the city of corruption? Is this your own injection?

From the timeline:

• Oct. 31, 2007: Furstenau files a federal civil rights lawsuit against the city, Naperville Police Chief David Dial, Hull and police detective Michael Cross.

Since we're just talking IFs, how about this one: IF DF loses his case and it's shown that he's just acting like a tantruming child who can not accept any responsibility for his own actions, isn't it WORTH it to the taxpayers to fight this tooth and nail just to publicly humiliate him in front of everyone and all of his supporters? I'm just asking, because we're clausing everything with IF, so don't get upset at the question. It's as fair as yours were.

joe

sure, you can say IF about this lawsuit being frivolous all you want. you can have your opinion along with those who agree with you. i can have my opinion along with those who agree with me. that is what this entire blog is, SPECULATION. since none of us know all the facts, ALL of our opinions are theoretically made on the foundation of speculation, or IF. my point is, we won't know until the end of all this whether or not furstenau is a villain or doing the right thing by standing up to people who MAY be corrupt. you and the city have every right to fight against him the entire way. im simply making a point to those who think he is going against taxpayers because simply because it will cost us money, that, in the end, he may do us a favor that is more important or worth the money spent to get there.

about his lawsuit, it is about his federal rights being violated. the part about riding the city of corruption is partly mine, but also comes from a statement he made in his interview.

first of all, IF he wins and officers did violate his civil rights and deny him his due process, that would mean that they were corrupt by purposely abusing their power to try and imprison an innocent man. so in effect, the purpose of the lawsuit to protect his civil rights also serves the other purpose of exposing corruption. again, don't jump all over me and twist my words and say that im stating, for a fact, that corruption exists. i am not. i am only posing thought for consideration about what may happen in the end when the whole truth, which none of us knows, comes out.

second, in his interview, and i have said this before, one of the most important things i thought furstenau and his attorney said was that they get 5-12 calls a day from people coming out of the woodwork to share what they know about the situation. they said that the majority of it was useless, but that some has been very meaningful and telling as to what has been going on at city hall. at that point, furstenau said this would be a very "cleansing" experience for the city. i think what furstenau means is, IF he is successful proving his case and winning, it will expose corruption along the way and those individuals will likely be accountable.

if everything furstenau says is true, then he is doing us a favor standing up to corrupt people who have abusing their power. if everything he says is false then he is being ridiculous and frivolously costing the taxpayers money. we will see which one it is in the end.

Taxpayer,

DF got his day in court and was found NOT GUILTY. That's Due Process.

During that Due Process, HE even signed away one of his Civil Rights, The right to Trial By Jury. I have to shake my head and wonder how he's going to win with those simple facts before him.

Let's agree to leave the speculation parts out of it because we both agree we each don't know whether they are true or not and repeating them over and over at each other is rather pointless. Summation: we agree to disagree.

joe

you aren't as smart as you think you are. we agree to disagree, but if furstenau had his day in court, his civil right could have still been violated if he wasn't suppose to be in court in the first place. if the cops fabricated or exaggerated to get him there or ignored evidence that would have kept him from court, that is still a violation of his due process and civil rights. duh!

besides, i promised myself i wouldn't talk to you anymore. im not sure what im thinking.

Taxpayer,

To my knowledge, he was not falsely imprisoned. If DF lost his case, there is an appeal's process that is still part of the Due Process. He did not lose the case, he won with a judgment of Not Guilty. The System worked because the Prosecution failed to provide enough evidence for a Guilty verdict by the JUDGE (Which again, is because DF signed away his Civil Right to a jury trial).

Again, I ask, what Civil Rights were violated, because it's more than obvious he has received Due Process and actually won his case.

If he lost, and also lost subsequent appeals, I could start to see his point, but he won by being found Not Guilty.

Joe,

I'll try to make this simple. You, me and every other citizen are protected against unjust conviction. The system worked for Furstenau and the judge through out the case without a conviction.
In additiona, you, me and every other citizen have additional rights including the right to not be unjustly targeted for prosecution. Furstenau's Federal claim is that he was wrongfully targeted for prosecution and that the wrongful prosecution damaged him financially and otherwise.

Furstenau's claim has been helped by the Kangaroo Court Censure issued by the City Council. It adds credibility to Furstenau's claim that he's been targeted for political reasons. You can fight political fights as long as you want. However, you cannot bring in the Naperville Police Department to help you win a political battle. We impeached President Nixon for essentially the same thing, bringing law enforcement & some other unsavory characters into a political battle during the run up to an election. Remember Watergate?

Michele,

I find it odd that you are comparing this to Watergate because I am not quite sure what parallel you are trying to establish. One connection I could think of would be if someone actually resigned from office, but that hasn't happened and it's become clear they won't.

Who are you saying had him targeted for 'unjust' prosecution?

Are you saying it's OK to interfere with a Police Officer who is conducting their lawful duty? From my recollection, it is not.

In fact (From City Code)

1-8A-3: POLICE OFFICERS' POWERS, DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES:

1.General: It shall be the duty of the members of the police department to see to the enforcement of all of the ordinances of the city and all statutes applicable herein; and to preserve order and prevent infractions of the law, and arrest violators thereof. (1960 Code, §3.005)

Sets the stage for enforcing:

10-2-1-6: OFFENSES RELATED TO CITY OFFICERS:

2.Interfering With Officers: It shall be unlawful to interfere with or hinder any officer or employee of the city while engaged in the duties of his office or employment. (Ord. 368.71, 4-19-1971)

From my recollection, and please feel free to correct it where it's wrong: The order came from Council to set up and enforce Temporary Tow Zones starting between 2 and 4 PM on January 1, 2006. LAWFUL ORDER and AYED by Mr. DF that prior December (2005).

Enforcement of such LAWFUL ORDER started happening and cars were or were in the process of being towed.

DF attempted to stop or otherwise INTERFERE with execution of that order from Council. (Violation of Ordinance 368.71, 4-19-1971, noted above)

Subsequent arrest and dealing with that interference was justified in my opinion.

NOTE: NO POLITICS INVOLVED, they were simply carrying out their duty as stipulated in City Code (1960 Code, §3.005) DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

*THIS* is why I believe DF will lose his Federal Case because there was justification, and I certainly hope the City can break it down and keep it THIS SIMPLE without being BAITED by any of the other CONSPIRACY cr*p that is being floated out there. Mr. Sotos, the information and RESEARCH in this post a freebie. Keep the change.

joe

you must be the most ignorant and stubborn person alive. not only did you twist and then avoid michele's comment but you still make no sense. just because npd's attempt to throw furstenau in jail didn't succeed, it doesn't mean that his civil rights weren't violated for atempting to. it doesn't matter whether he was found guilty or innocent. if it is determined that the cops fabricated evidence or ignored or hid evidence that would have cleared him, they still violated his civil rights.

just because the judge found in his favor it doesn't excuse any misconduct the cops may have engaged in to put him in front of the judge to be tried.

the cops have sworn an oath to use their power to serve and protect the public and uphold the law. if they even attempt to falsely arrest someone and throw someone in jail, they are violating civil rights and breaking the law themselves, no matter what the verdict.

frustenau asking cops to give citizens a break and not tow their cars because the city failed to put up temporary no parking sings in time hardly constitutes interfering with a police officer in the performance of his duties. give me a break. if it was, then why wasn't he charged with that. the cops didn't even charge him for breaking the ordinance you feel so smart about citing. and don't give me some lecture about how they were doing him a favor. they weren't doing him a favor when they falsely charged him with the other 2 infractions.

My prediction for what is going to happen here is this: Naperville’s own (Big) Dick Furstenau will wind up getting his day in court, and will lose his case just as soon as Officer Michael Hull gets up on the stand and says under oath that (Big) Dick did indeed strike him and he has videotape and witnesses to prove it. Afterward (Big) Dick will get in front of the media, and pout and whine and throw a hissy fit of how this was a miscarriage of justice and that he is going to appeal and he better win this time and get his $130,000 or he is going to hold his breath until his face turns blue and then you’ll all be sorry, yeah!. His attorney Shawn Collins will later issue a statement to the media correcting (Big) Dick’s previous statements and say that in actuality, (Big) Dick will only hold his breath until his face turns red. (Big) Dick will lose his appeal and announce to anyone who still cares at that point that he is leaving the Republican Party for their unforgivable betrayal of him and will seek to join the Democratic Party, which is represented by the image of a braying, kicking jackass, so he should fit right in. He will later lose his Council seat in a landslide election to the current Meter Maid of the city, and will then take his class act to Cicero, where his artful political skills and proven track record of dedication to city employees might truly be appreciated.

Taxpayer,

I agree with you. I believe he should have been charged with interference and not 'disturbing the peace' ((Hard to do when there's a CROWD around to watch a parade)).

The arrest and the charge are two different steps in the process. Again, I agree with you, when it came time to charge they picked the wrong thing but there was still probable cause for an arrest with what I cited even if that is not what he ultimately was charged with specifically.

Many times, arrests are made because there is probable cause to believe a crime was committed. After the investigation phase charges are later filed based on the evidence that was collected or discovered. That's where the City screwed up royally trying to make what he was charged with stick. It was a very dumb call on their part to even attempt that charge (Battery then Disturbing the Peace).

To attempt to claim there was no reason for any attempt of an arrest whatsoever is horse-hockey because what I cited happened (Interfering with a Police Officer performing his lawful duties) which is a Violation. Not Interfering would have meant everyone stayed away back where the officer told them to stay without approaching the officer who was performing his duties. Did everyone stay back and not approach the officer? I wasn't there, but from what I read, No.. someone DID in fact approach the officer and DID try to stop the execution of that lawful duty.

joe you are an idiot

so next time someone has their car towed or gets a traffic ticket, if they complain and disagree with what the cop is doing, then they should all be arrested for interfering with a cop in the performance of his duties? i think it is impossible to believe that you actually believe the stuff that comes out of your mouth.

it is clear you don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. you have no idea what interfering with a cop in the performance of his duty is nor anything else you claim to know so much about.

Taxpayer,

The law is the law.

Are you proposing ONE set of rules for the general public and a DIFFERENT set of rules for elected officials?

I certainly hope not. No one is above the law.

Taxpayer and everyone else who thinks it's the proper time and place to argue with a police officer when they are conducting their duties:

http://www.ehow.com/how_2053962_handle-police-encounters.html

Some snipits:

When in a traffic stop:

5
Step Five
Keep a respectful attitude toward the police officer, even if you feel you have been accused of something you didn't do. Remember, there is a time and a place to argue your side, but that time and place is not on the side of the road.

If at your home:

4
Step Four
Maintain a cordial attitude with the police officers. Causing a scene and arguing may prolong their need to be in your home, and may make the situation worse for you.

Do not resist arrest or argue with the police if taken to the police station for questioning.

There is a time and place for everything. Acting infuriated and trying to argue with them while they are performing their duties is IDIOTIC.

My last post should have been addressed to Randy.

Also, you didn't answer MY question. Why should the city allow Furstenau to coerce them into paying taxpayer dollars to pay off his personal polical expenses, and to pay off his political campaign donors?

Joe,

I think you, like many policemen have the same wrong-headed idea of the nature of authority held by a uniformed policeman. Any citizen has the right to refuse an instruction or request of a uniformed officer if that citizen is correct in their belief that the policeman is operating "outside of the law."

For example, if a policeman ask your wife for a favor in order to avoid a speeding ticket, I suspect you would want her to argue with him - maybe you would defend her right to slap him if he didn't stop this unlawful police activity. Whether or not you supported her right refuse the policeman's "instructions", a Federal Judge would find that she was completely within her rights to argue, resist and even slap him.

Now, in Furstenau's case, Furstenau was arguing with a policeman about the "lawfulness" of ticketing and towing cars without adequate "no-parking" signage. Fustenau knew that the towing was "illegal" because he voted on the towing law and knew that the policy required no-parking signs to be placed well in advance of the parade. Furstenau was well within his rights as a citizen to argue with a policeman that was operating "outside" the law. As a councilman who knew the law in much detail and Hull should have stopped playing the role of "the big bad law" and listened to Furstenau. That was NPD's first mistake. NPD's second mistake was in continuing to prosecute a case for 18 months when Chief Dial knew that he could not win a conviction. He knew within 30 days that Hull could not produce an eyewitness. He also knew that Furstenau produced 3 eyewitnesses to say he never hit Officer Hull.

These are the facts.

1) The NPD never investigated whether or not the ticketing and towing was done according to policy. If they did, they never released the findings. This would be very easy for Chief Dial to do, after all he has the ticketing and towing records for numerous vehicles. If they conducted this investigation and found that Furstenau was right - they should immediately appologize and issue a press release stating "Furstenau was right... Hull was wrong".

2) If the NPD never investigated the legitimacy of the ticketing/towing, they simply failed to properly investigate the incedent. Hull had no authority to act outside the law. Furstenau could not be found to have improperly interfered with the officer unless there is first a finding that the officer was properly enforcing a law (remember the example about your wife).

3) Instead of properly investigating the entire incedent, the NPD set out in an investigation with the goal of "get furstenau out of office". They ignored 3 eyewitnesses that supported Furstenau, they allowed the case to proceed despite the fact that Hull failed to properly report the incedent and then later changed his story. After determining that they had no case, Chief Dial refused to dismiss the case and instead delayed the trial on multiple occasions. These delays lasted through a state campaign and then (just happened) to last for a few months after Furstenau faced his 3rd City Council election.

Joe, I agree that "no one is above the law." But, I think you are confused in believing that a uniformed policeman or even Chief Dial is "the law."

"The Law" is part concept, part philosophy, part interpretation and part black letter codes. The Law is never a person.

Michele,

As has been pointed out many times... DF's car was not being ticketed nor towed. I believe many supporters said time and time again that he was parked at the Municipal Building.

So, that leaves us with those people who's cars WERE being towed. Did they resist? Did they not comply with the ticketing and towing at the time or did they attempt to get into the officer's body space and create a scene and argue with him?

DF *INJECTED* himself into the situation by going up to the Officer BY HIS OWN CHOICE. The ordinance was passed, notice was posted in various publications that I had previously in other blogs posted with links. If someone at city works was late doing their job, the ordinance is STILL VALID AND LAWFUL. The time and place to argue that is in court AFTER THE EVENT. Did anyone who got ticketed or towed actually fight their ticket and win? If so, you may have a point of a court ruled the zone to NOT BE LAWFUL. If you have proof of this ruling, please post it. Otherwise, you are saying a lot about nothing because I believe the order was LAWFUL to ticket and tow vehicles. Please post a ruling to the contrary... then we'll go from there.

Joe,

I agree with your facts regarding Furstenau's car not being towed. But, that supports the idea that Furstenau knew that the ticketing/towing was unlawful. He did not have a personal motive - he just thought the ticketing/towing was not what City Council had approved. His only possible motive was in defending his constitutents against unlawful police activity. In fact, most people would be less inclined to believe him if his car was being towed.

Any citizen has the right to complain, protest or interfere with a policeman acting outside the law. It is a "high-risk" approach, but it is not illegal.

As to whether or not anyone took the time to go to court to fight a parking ticket, please ask Chief Dial. Again, to my knowledge they have never investigated the legality / procedures that were being followed by the NPD that fateful day.

Also, postings on the City website have nothing to due with proper, timely no parking notice that City Council has always required when temporary no-parking zones are established on City streets.

Michele,

All DF had to do was work to get a REFUND to the people towed if it turned out to be unlawful. That would have been how much? $1,000? $5,000?

But no, He chose to do something else (attempt to interpret the law himself) and act on his interpretation. His actions will now cost the taxpayers AT LEAST $130,000.

Correct?

Thanks for the 'Favor' DF.

Several points about employment with the City of Naperville:  1) If a councilman or department manager wants something, they get it now, no matter how impossible it may be to do or what else you have to do.    2) If a department manager or the city manager wants something, they will get it, no matter what the rules or procedures say.  3) If the City Manager does not like you, you are out.  Look at the records of many high level employees who were there in good standing one day and out with no apparent reason the next.  They can speak for themselves if they want, but as employees, we knew the only thing wrong that many of these high level employees did was disagree with Peter.  4) The atmosphere of the CoN employment changed dramatically since Peter came to town.  From encouraging and a place you were proud to say you worked, to the traditional 'I hate my job', 'I hate my boss', 'I can't wait to retire' atmosphere.    5) In the years prior to my decision to leave a 15 year career, I saw many employees (from many departments) that I highly respected become totally disillusioned with the disintegration of customer (citizen) service focus and the developing focus of 'whatever my boss thinks will make himself look good'. 6) Leaving the CoN employment, expect that your name and reputation will be trashed by your x-boss unless you mastered the new focus mentioned in point 5. 7) Since the first meeting I attended where Peter spoke, I was concerned with how much he could be trusted to be truthful, honest, and value anyone's opinion other than his own.And lastly, Where does Peter get the idea that it is alright for him to write that open highly critical letter and sock it to the taxpayers with his retirement 'bonus'.  Very unprofessional behavior.  So many of us lowly employees who left were scared to death to say anything negative about anyone in management in our exit interviews for fear of reprisal with a 'will not rehire' mark on our record.  Trust me on this, Peter and many on the CoN management team, any honest open letter from many x-employees would paint you in a much worse light than anything you try to trump up on Dick or others.  It would be TRUE. 

thank you tricia.

my point all along about the censure and open letter. furstenau isn't perfect, but those who are against him make the assumption that peter b. and other councilman are, and that they themselves have never done anything wrong or similar to furstenau.

i am privy to many things that go on at city hall due to a close friend who works there, and i can tell you that peter b. and councilman have all done things to staff and each other, on many occasions, similar or worse than what councilman furstenau was accused of. that is why the censure was so bogus. these people had the nerve, with no regard to hypocrisy, to publicly smear and censure furstenau for actions they themselves are knowingly guilty of over and over. that is how i know their actions where not an expression of support to city staff but totally politically motivated.

and now you have heard it directly from the mouth of a former employee what is was like under peter b's leadership downtown. then he has the nerve to write a letter saying furstenau creates a negative working environment. look in the mirror. i wonder if any employees downtown would like to share what peter b. did when his home appraisal conducted by a city dept. came back lower than he wanted.(i think it was for some tax purposes or something. can't remember the specifics of the story on exactly what had him so upset.) how many people did he yell at or threaten in a city department that day? of course, just as tricia said, many employees are afraid to speak out for fear of losing their job.

im certain that in order to discredit the censure, furstenau and his attorney will demonstrate it was political retaliation by showing many of these types incidents performed by other city councilman and peter b. that were overlooked, and it will be fun to see how they deal with all the negative press once it is aimed at them.

Have no fear taxpayer! This is what happened in Napergate. It lasted so long city employees, like Tricia, are the ones that finally fed him the damning data and information about the city. It always works that way.

By the time DF goes to court, many employees would have left their employment and happily testify on behalf of DF.

That is why everyone is resembling it to Napergate except the newcomers who were not around!

taxpayer,

All we have to do is look back at Rosanova's horrible behavior on "censure night" to know what you say is true. He made anything I have heard about DF look like a saint!

Finding common ground is a good thing, so I'll restate my agreement with BoB S, and Taxpayer with regards to Rosanova's deplorable and completely unprofessional behavior towards a citizen at that city council meeting.

If only with the speaker had a quick whit about him and would have fired right back:

"Councilman, please make sure to add yourself to item N-1 for the evening and the incident to back that up is your outburst towards me this evening... Thank you"

...which I am sure would have prompted back an even bigger outburst and again a fire back would have been "Thank you for confirming my suggestion, Councilman"

bob s.

your right, it was outrageous what rosanova pulled. and the city themselves knew he screwed up, although they won't openly admit it. but you want to see something funny that proves they know he screwed up? go back and watch the council meeting online. the person rosanova yelled at comes up to make another comment later in the meeting during the topic of recall or burchard severance. when he approaches the podium, the sitting city manager nearly comes out of his chair motioning toward rosanova and margo ely. he catches ely's attention telling her to have rosanova apologize. ely then leans over and tells rosanova to apologize, and within a second, rosanova turns on his mich apologizes for yelling. they knew what he did was no different then what they were about to censure furstenau for and they made sure he immediately apologized. what a bunch of hypocrites.

Hey taxpayer,
Where can I go to watch that council meeting online. Please give me the link. I do believe DF got shafted and want to learn more.

Thanks!!

hey taxpayer, guess what ? alot of people writing and reading this blog are former or current city of naperville employee's. and MY people tell me just the opposite of what you are trying to convey. they can and do attest that DICK is awful. he is way out of line, and the censure is the LEAST they can and WILL do. he has created a very hostile workplace, he has lied, threatened employees jobs, and tried to manipulate much of the ctiy's policy to suit him. let me repeat a few things. DICK HAS NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER TO TALK TO, ACCOST OR THREATEN A CITY EMPLOYEE. HE SHOULD HAVE NO CONTACT WITH THEM AT ALL. IN THE HALLWAY, THE WASHROOM, ON THE STREETS ! HE IS NOT THEIR BOSS !!!! as for peter b. and any other councilman, lets hear your BIG allegations !! PUT UP OR SHUT UP !!!!

D Bone,

Government employees are the most insulated and best protected class of workers in the United States. That insulation and protection tends to create unresponsive bureaurocrats. When we give bureaucrats more and more power with less and less accountability to the citizens that pay their salaries, we get bad government. This tendecy is so typical, you hear common phrases like "government work" to describe overpriced sub-quality performance.

Now, I've asked before, but I don't recall you answering the question. Do you work for the City? If so, please suggest any mechanism that is more likely to create a city staff that is accountable to the citizens than the mechanism that exists when elected officials get involved in the workings of our community.

I for one would like to see more Furstenau-like councilmen. Ones that do their homework, read the packets and are willing to get involved on behalf of citizens when something is not working at city hall.

We would all like to have fewer "bosses." But, if you really want to find out how accountability works - I would suggest you try a job in the private sector for a year or so. After that, come back to this blog and tell me about how tough bosses, investors, and customers can be.

d. bone

i have never said furstenau is innocent of the accusations in the censure. i have only stated 2 things about them

1) he was never given an opportunity to defend himself and im sure these stories are not 100% accurate. furstenau said some were true, some were false and some were exaggerated. im sure the truth is somewhere in the middle.

2) furstenau himself admitted he isn't "lily white", but neither is the rest of the council. im am not saying furstenau has not done things he shouldn't have, but i know for a FACT that many of the councilman and peter t. burchard have done many things as bad or worse as what furstenau was censured for. that tells me the censure was politically and personally motivated, and hypocritical

and by the way, furstenau can talk to whom ever he wants and tell them whatever he wants. it is no "crime" or breaking the law to tell someone they will lose their job if they don't do it better.

furthermore, furstenau is, in fact, one of their bosses. he is 1 of 9 bosses that everyone at city hall has. he isn't their direct boss, the city manager is, but the city manager's boss is the city council. that makes the city council in charge of everyone. end of story. furstenau, by himself is no ones boss, but he is 1 of 9 people who can fire any city employee they decide to as a group for any legitimate reason, including the city manager, the police chief, a patrol officer or they guy cleaning the street or mopping the city hall floor. as a group, they can fire any city employee they feel deserves to get fired. it doesn't matter what you think, that is a fact whether you like it or not.

hey d. bone

if you're right and furstenau doesn't have any power or influence (along with the council as a whole) over anyones job security, then why would he be viewed as a threat?? even if he threatens their job verbally, how does the employee take it as a threat or feel threatened by it? why don't they just tell him to go get screwed and jump in a lake. if he isn't one of their bosses up the chain, what would they ever have to fear from him or the council?

the city manager runs the city. the city manager has an assistant, there are dept. heads, there are bosses, there are workers under them. the city council does NOT enforce their own policy or decisions, what have you. you cannot expect council members to roam around the town looking for problems to deal with, or checking up on employee's. and THE COUNCIL CANNOT FIRE ANYBODY ! do you think that if rosanova sees a leaf collector sleeping in his truck, he can just directly fire him ??? i suggest you call over to the city, and ask them how they go about their hiring and firing.

now, DICK has taken it upon himself to roam around and check on employee's and threaten their jobs. he cannot directly fire them, but any threat is taken very seriously. he even boasted several weeks ago how he singlehandedly got a permit for a residents circular driveway, this is not a councilman's job. everything DICK has been accused of is written in stone. it has all been documented, the city has every event, every complaint, everything. it is NOT just about be abrasive, or speaking up.

i am not aware of ANY other complaints accusing the city manager or any other councilman. the bottom line is DICK has many complaints against him, so they must be taken seriously. he has been censured, DICK was taken aside many times before the p. burchard letter and asked to stop his behavior, DICK did NOT. they had no recourse but to censure him. now, after all this time of being talked to, asked nicely, asked not so nicely, and now demanding he stop his behavior we should respect him ???? i think he has a psychological problem that should be addressed. he should probably be removed and seek help. he continues to be an embarrassment.

D Bone,

If I see a leaf collector sleeping in his truck, while drawing my hard earned tax dollars, I'll walk up and say something. If I don't get my garbage picked up on time or my street plowed when needed, I'll call and complain. And, if it happens numerous time, I certainly want someone to lose their job.

I pay my taxes, I vote for people that show me they are concerned enough to pay attention to how my tax dollars are being spent. It's called accountability. We need more of it in government - definitely not less.

Spend your time thinking of ways to make local government better, and I think Furstenau will treat you with respect. Spend your time squawking about mean bosses that "threaten your job" and I hope someone shows you the door.

d.bone

furstenau is an embarrassment for you and other city employees who want to sit in your chair paid for by taxpayers, in your building paid for by taxpayers, earning your salary paid for by taxpayers, on your 40 hr a week clock working half as productively as anyone in the private sector. furstenau is a problem for you because he demands more from you to help the taxpayers who are paying for everything you do. you are there to serve them. that is what the purpose of your job is. to run the day to day needs of the city, on behalf of the taxpayer. you may not think that, but that is what nearly every taxpayer thinks.

you know what, in my private sector sales job, i get reminded daily in many ways, that if my numbers aren't right at the end of the year, they might find someone to replace me with who will get the numbers they want. also, i get paid a salary which doesn't matter if i work 40 hours or 80 hours a week, i get paid the same money. and most people in the private sector will tell you that there are more weeks closer to 80 hours than to 40 hours. don't look to me or many other people in the private sector for sympathy because someone downtown is telling people that if they suck at their job they might lose it. welcome to the real world of accountability in your job.

as i said in my post, furstenau or rosanova individually can't fire someone, but the council a whole can fire anyone. if they can't then why are furstenau's "threats" viewed as threats. why not just blow him off and not let it affect you? i like having someone downtown trying to keep the establishment more responsive to the taxpayers.

furstenau didn't do anything illegal to help someone get their driveway permit. that is one of the ways he feels he can best serve his constituents. the city was screwing these people so they came to him because they know he will work on their behalf. he then leads people to the proper channels and helps them cut through red tape while asking the proper questions. don't imply he did anything illegal whatsoever in helping those people. if he did they would have censured him for that too.

the council meeting can be found on the city's website.

www.naperville.il.us

click on "media gallery" it is one of the sub-titles near the top.

then click on "WCNC streaming video"

you will see dec 18 council meeting.

Michele,

Here's where we differ in opinion:

I believe that when DF decided to ask for $130,000 of TAXPAYER MONEY for a situation he played a VERY LARGE ROLE IN CREATING due to his actions, he, at that instant, departed from his stance of looking our for Taxpayer Money for PERSONAL reasons.

If he wants to continue to do that, he needs to step away from Council because he is now putting his own PERSONAL AGENDA ahead of the TAXPAYERS and going against his very principle of looking out for 'their money'.

One can't be in both camps at the same time. That's Hypocrisy, the very thing people are saying Council themselves are guilty of.

He needs to choose which is more important to him: Saving Taxpayer's Money or Seeking to Obtain 6 figures (or more) of Taxpayer Money for Personal Reasons.

Joe,

A City Councilman does not "release" the City from any wrongful damage just by accepting the office of councilman. That would be ludicrous.

What if a City owned vehicle crashed into his car. Would he have a right to sue if the city was at fault and still refused to pay for the damage? Same concept, just a different damage.

Michele,

In your hypothetical example, that is what Vehicle Insurance is for.
There is no need for a lawsuit.

How does your example involve or require a 6 figure payment using tax payer money?
Money to pay for your example comes from the insurance company.

Anything else you want clarified?

Joe,
The City is self-insured below $1 million. If City refuses to pay, same question.

Michele,

Insurance claims are typically worked through your own insurance company. Mine always have been even when others are 'at fault'.
If someone is traveling without it, they are in violation of the law.

Anyone has the 'right' to sue any one for anything. Winning is a whole other story.

Does DF have the 'right' to sue the city? Yes. He can even sue them for stained underwear caused by lengthy public comments at city council meetings if he wanted to. Everyone has the 'right'. The difference is this, so please pay VERY CLOSE ATTENTION:

Having the 'right' does not mean you 'should'.

DF's stance has been to SAVE the people of Naperville MONEY.
His own injection into a parking situation (instead of using the established contest/appeal process) is what started the chain of events of where we are today. Further, he CHOSE to file a lawsuit with the city instead of just declaring victory after his court case.

He was under no OBLIGATION to sue, but he PERSONALLY CHOSE to file a lawsuit against the city. At that very moment, he acted (for PERSONAL REASONS) directly OPPOSITE of his stance about saving taxpayers money.

The man has gone AGAINST his own principles of why a lot of people voted for him in the past (myself included).

He had a choice to take his victory and leave it at that or sue. HE CHOSE to sue. Now, he is demanding $130,000 of Taxpayer Money... that very money he CAMPAIGNED and PROMISED to protect if elected to Council.

He shot his own credibility and honor in the foot with that move. The only way to re-establish it is to drop the suit. Otherwise, he can never make the claim to be looking out for OUR MONEY because he has shown by his actions that he will brush that aside if it involves a PERSONAL GAIN for himself.

Dropping the suit gives him favor by all citizens. Continuing the suit will isolate him into a dark little corner and out of the woodwork will come many who will see to it that the entire city is reminded of his PERSONAL CHOICES come the next election. I would venture a guess that a dead squirrel sitting on Benton would have a better chance of being elected at that point.

He has another PERSONAL choice ahead of him.. Win the favor of all citizens by actually saving them money (dropping the suit), or isolate himself with a personal pursuit and paint a VERY EASY target on his backside for the next election that any candidate can exploit with ease.

His career, his choice.

i'm not sure where you are going with all that business about city workers working about half as productive as private sector people ??? where did you get that number ??? perhaps you tried to work for the city, and did not qualify ? seems you are are unable to make a rational argument if you have so much anger toward the city employee's as a whole. i would suggest you apologize to all the city of naperville's fine workers before your next leaf pick-up.

also, have you ever watched a council meeting and they voted to fire someone ? does'nt happen. the firing comes from the chain of command. the problem is, DICK thinks he can wield his power wherever he goes. he will go to a dept. head and complain about a individual, or he will even go to the city manager and complain. he has NO AUTHORITY to do this. this must come from a outside complaint, a co-worker, client, boss, superior. when DICK threatened people jobs, it was not because the person was doing a "bad job". it was because DICK didn't like something the person did which was counter to DICK. if you cross him, he wants you to pay. read the complaints, he threatens because he is mad about losing face, or because he "believes" it should be another way. it has nothing to do with the performance of the person !

you have all been led astray my little sheep. it is time to come back and join the flock. i will not rest until the big bad man is recalled and gone. email: furstenaur@naperville.il.us tell him we do not back him, or his 5 million dollar threat !!!!

d.bone

did i say city workers are half as productive as people in similar positions in the private sector? im sorry. im meant to say they are 40% as productive.

my bad.

Bitterness, prejudicial statements and spite really rally people to one's party (NOT).
I think some have been breathing in their own bad air for far too long.

I hope they keep it up, because it will drive more and more people away come election time.
The dumbfounded look on their face when it happens will be priceless.

Joe,

Ok - now that you've agreed that he has the right to sue. Let's address whether it is right to sue the city.

If Furstenau were looking for a quick buck, he would not run for a council seat. $10k per year for untold hours of work - not a money maker.

If Furstenau were looking to capitalize on the unlawful police prosecution of his case, he would not have first asked for an investigation / apology. He would have just filed suit.

Now, if on the other hand, Furstenau is suing to identify "bad government practices" then, you have to ask what is it worth for the City to have "good government." During the censure discussion, it became clear that Furstenau's watchdog approach recently brought the city an $8 million refund from water commission overcharges. I do not doubt that Furstenau's willingness to "insert himself" into a situation on behalf of the citizens was the biggest reason that Naperville received the $8million refund. I have never heard of another councilman single-handedly capturing this much money for our city.

The NPD charges and the censure, at their core, are a series of complaints that Furstenau is "too nosey" and "too involved" and "too opinionated".... Everything we're talking about on these blogs have the same basis.

Now, if Furstenau is fighting for the rights of a citizen (or even a councilman) to get involved in the details of the operation of this city, I think the cost of the litigation is a good investment in "good government."

Michele,

DF did try for a fast buck for someone via a letter to the city that basically stated:

Give me $130K and I'll pretend it didn't happen.

Sounds like a quick buck to me. If not for himself, then for his supporters who threw money at a losing candidate.

Typically, this type of action is looked as as extortion.

That's a nice quality to have on a campaign sign, don't you think?

Michele,

I've had a change of heart.

Perhaps DF should continue this case.
It is my understanding that the LOSING party has to pay the other's court costs.

If true, the taxpayers will be out no money but he will have removed himself from the political arena forever.

Enjoy the new year.

joe

i think you need to look up the definition of extortion. extortion is an attempt to ILLEGALLY acquire money through threats or intimidation.

sending a letter asking to recover campaign contributions for a campaign that was damaged by an arrest he believes was false isn't extortion. it is a good faith offer to avoid court for both sides. many cases that get filed are often proceeded by such a request. it is a common law practice. it isn't in the same realm of extortion. it isn't illegal.

if furstenau wins this case he will certainly win a lot more than 130k. if he was after the money, he would have just gone and filed suit and not given the city an opportunity to pay a much smaller amount.

Legal or not,

The slogan "Actions that some believe amount to extortion" could be a perfectly legitimate campaign phrase to be used by the competition.
That will be a hard one to shake off due to the publicity it has received so far and will continue to receive as time marches on.

One must always consider how the opposition can take advantage of one's actions. It's a very dangerous gamble to make and not one I would undertake if I wanted to ever be elected again. But, like I said before, it will be his choice in front of him. If his gamble fails he will amount to King Midas in reverse and drag every single other candidate down with him. He needs to decide if his personal feelings are worth that or not.

Taxpayer,
I'm sure Joe will have more details on this for you, but the definition of extort according to Dictionary.com is: To obtain from another by coercion or intimidation.

ex·tor·tion
–noun 1. an act or instance of extorting.
2. Law. the crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one's office or authority.
3. oppressive or illegal exaction, as of excessive price or interest: the extortions of usurers.
4. anything extorted.

Only one definition uses the word illegal. Although extortion is often illegal, it does not have to be illegal to be extortion.

Good call, SNT.

Another 'legal' example:

DuPage recently elevated its court costs.

It can now cost you over $200.00 to plead no contest to get out of a $75.00 ticket.

Many will just pay the $75 and be done with it because fighting it costs too much, even if you are right and the police are wrong.

Extortion? Yes, I think so. The intimidation is that you will pay more if you don't pay initially. Legal? Yes, it's legal.

tb

there were 3 real definitions of the word extort you listed. 2 of them had references of being illegal. #3 said illegal and #2 said a crime. #4 didn't define the word.

besides, i can't believe you want me to argue about the meaning of extortion. pointless waist of time.

point is the way you and joe are using the word extortion was to imply furstenau did something wrong or illegal by asking for 130k. if you weren't implying that you wouldn't have said. furstenau did nothing illegal or wrong to ask for 130k prior to filing a suit.

don't bother giving me some excuse joe or say i was ASSUMING something. it's all bogus and this conversation is over.

im retiring.

Taxpayer,

You are half right. I used the word to imply he was doing something that I feel is wrong... Suing the city for a situation that he started in motion by his own actions. The word 'Illegal' came up when you brought it into the picture. I merely felt his initial letter for money with the threat of further legal action if not paid was wrong, especially since he was responsible for his own actions that led to the incident in the first place.. Plain and simple.

Put another way:

If I go pour a bottle of cooking oil in the grocery store and turn around on slip on it, does that make the store responsible? No. Do people try to exploit incidents like that for a quick buck? Yes. Do they win sometimes? Unfortunately, yes. Do I think it's wrong? Of course I do.

joe

your argument is irrelevant. you claim this is all furstenau's fault for starting an INCIDENT. furstenau was cleared by the court of ANY wrong doing of any kind in that incident. he didn't do anything illegal. he did what he felt he needed to do to fight for the citizens who were there and felt they were getting screwed. he didn't "inject or insert" himself outside of the chain of command or disrupt anything. he didn't try to give them any orders. he simply asked the officers to have some understanding and allow people to move their cars after the npd themselves failed to post signs in time. when hull said he had to follow orders, furstenau requested the supervisor in charge. he didn't do anything inappropriate and the courts decision says so. the cops even tried, at the last minute after 17 months, to add a disorderly conduct charge because they new they had no case for battery. the court cleared him of any disorderly conduct. he didn't do anything wrong. the judge said, "anything that happened was clearly incidental and nonthreatening". translation: he didn't do anything criminal. you may not agree with how he handled the situation, but IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK, the court said he didn't do anything wrong.

this whole thing wasn't started by furstenau because the courts say it wasn't. we will learn soon if all this is to blame on the npd because they railroaded him. don't give me some bs about cooking oil on the floor or mcdonalds coffee being too hot. this isn't even in the same realm as those. those types of things are small and nit-picky and transparent, i agree. this case is about the npd allegedly attempting to throw furstenau in prison for 15 years over something that never happened. that is as serious as serious gets, and he deserves the right to try and prove it. don't give me some bs about how he is going against his own principles because he isn't thinking about the taxpayers before his own civil rights. BS. how about you putting your own wallet before his civil rights. sounds hypocritical to me. you can't tell me anything about the case because you or i don't know anything about the details of it. anything you try to say as fact is pure speculation. i haven't said anything as fact, only that furstenau deserves the right to prove his case.

the cops said furstenau did something illegal and they had their day in court to prove it. they failed. now furstenau alleges the npd did something illegal and now he will have his opportunity to take them to court and prove it. sounds fair to me. we will see what happens.

Anon,

Funny how you speak with such certainty about specific details on the day of the incident but then go on to say "you can't tell me anything about the case because you or i don't know anything about the details of it."

You seem to be talking in circles.

Taxpayer,
Why do you let Joe do this to you over and over again? He is just egging you on. You have answered all his questions and it seems like he wants to hear the answer over and over again because it means you have to write over and over again.

You should really leave this blog and join the rest of us on the latest blog on Furstenau. Let us focus on how we can help him. How we can win the next elections so this will never happen again? How we can get the old Napergatians to help Furstenau in the next election? How we can run Napergate Style Ads to help Furstenau??

You are expending way to much energy on Joe! You advised us not to respond to him but you continue to respond to him and address him directly.

Please taxpayer, stop lowering yourserlf to Joe's level by responding to him. He knows you are emotional and taking advantgae of your emotions.

Just go to the next blog and let us see how the Napergate Case can help Furstenau. I believe it can because it shows a pattern of abuse against those who oppose the establishment. Let us look for other cases similar to Napergate that may help Furtenau.

But your repeating yourself to Joe over and over again will wear you out. Joe would like to wear you out because he fears you and your ability to pesuade others of what is right from what is wrong. He wants to keep you focused on a back hand that never occurred...the court found him not guilty and that speaks volumes. If Joe will not accept a court verdict, there is nothing we can do but ignore him.

Please tell him to stay on this thread while you move to the latest thread and ask him not to follow you. Tell him your are tired of his nonsense and let him know you will not respond to him ever again....and MEAN it.

Taxpayer -

I assume your Jan 4th post to me was for Joe, right? I haven't posted on this blog for days.

T.B.

The FURSTENEAU federal lawsuit is not the only federal civil rights violations facing NPD. What is the status of the female training officers suit and can we please discuss those details and FACTS as we know them. The people of Naperville can expect continued actions as we try to get the TRUTH out ,nationally,concerning corruption and crime inside the NPD. Want to help bring the DOJ/FBI into this investigations? I can be reached @815.242.0019. U.S. Attorneys front-line #312.353.1500 ICE 312.385 1500. Do you really think we can make THE difference?